TheRPGSite

Following on from this thread  (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=27412).

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?

Game balance should be through the rules.

Why? Because for those who don't care about game balance, it doesn't affect them in the slightest. But for those that do, it's there for them to enjoy the game as well.

Game balance through a GM or role-playing is far to subjective to be fair to everyone at the table, or to everyone in every game.

Short answer, it depends.

If it's a game where the characters don't particularly matter.  Like sandbox AD&D, Paranoia or Cthulhu, then I'd advise against worrying too much about it.

If it has a charop metagame, like 3e, then heck yes.  Likewise if it is a tactical board game.

I suppose a big indicator would be how much time is spent on the 1" grid.

I like my games to have some rough edges and for choices to matter. So if balance means everyone is equally good, regardless, then it isnt something I have much interest in. Balance in terms of making sure the system isnt broken, is something to weigh in design. But it has to be balanced against things like the flavor of the game and keeping things fun (too much balance in my opinion can reduce excitement).

Further, 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?

Yeah, mechanical game balance is unquestionably a good thing. It isn't in conflict with the effects of good roleplaying or a good GM and in fact it helps support those things rather than obstruct them.

Game balance doesn't mean that you have to have equally powerful characters or 'fair, winnable' encounters - it just means that if you want to, you can. And if you don't want to, ideally the game can explain how its dials work so you can deliberately aim for a big character imbalance or a really tough encounter and make sure that's what you end up with.

To me the main advantage of game balance is actually that it reduces metagame thinking and encourages players to do what seems interesting without having to worry that they are gimping themselves as a result. You 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. 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.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;679745I like my games to have some rough edges and for choices to matter. So if balance means everyone is equally good, regardless, then it isnt something I have much interest in. Balance in terms of making sure the system isnt broken, is something to weigh in design. But it has to be balanced against things like the flavor of the game and keeping things fun (too much balance in my opinion can reduce excitement).

I think even the most balanced game in the world is still only going to be a fair eyeball of balance. Which is to say, there will still be a lot of room for cleverness and imagination to tip the scales. In any event balance would be an overall thing and certain characters would still have strengths and weaknesses in different circumstances. A game where eg every characters had exactly the same stats just different visual imagery would be an example of game balance done in a boring and unhelpful way.

I'm sure this has been chopped to death in other threads, but I find it interesting to ask what we're balancing?

The characters are have equal ______________________ (what?)

• relevance to the outcome of combats
• relevance to each sphere of action (e.g. everyone has something to do in combat, in diplomacy, in exploration, etc.)
• power, but in different spheres
• access to spheres that are most relevant to their character
• numbers of decisions to make
• connection to the campaign's events through their backstories or game history
• ability to affect what happens in the campaign
• focus around the playing table
• power in the game world in some absolute sense (e.g. political)
• some subtle combination of all these things, and more, that differs player by player

Quote from: fuseboy;679756I'm sure this has been chopped to death in other threads, but I find it interesting to ask what we're balancing?

The characters are have equal ______________________ (what?)

• relevance to the outcome of combats
• relevance to each sphere of action (e.g. everyone has something to do in combat, in diplomacy, in exploration, etc.)
• power, but in different spheres
• access to spheres that are most relevant to their character
• numbers of decisions to make
• connection to the campaign's events through their backstories or game history
• ability to affect what happens in the campaign
• focus around the playing table
• power in the game world in some absolute sense (e.g. political)
• some subtle combination of all these things, and more, that differs player by player

In 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.

Secondly, in fantasy settings, races may well be better than other races. In terms of 'race' balance then I see no reason why for example an Elf couldn't be stronger, smarter, more gifted in general against a human. Further, I've no problem with people who wish to have the extra hassle of being magic-users being more 'powerful' at higher levels.

In all its should always (and does anyway) come down to the DM/GM.

Quote from: soviet;679750I think even the most balanced game in the world is still only going to be a fair eyeball of balance. Which is to say, there will still be a lot of room for cleverness and imagination to tip the scales. In any event balance would be an overall thing and certain characters would still have strengths and weaknesses in different circumstances. A game where eg every characters had exactly the same stats just different visual imagery would be an example of game balance done in a boring and unhelpful way.

I think part of the problem with balance discussions, is everyone means something different when they say balance, especially because we are speaking in vague generalities and not offering concrete examples. Does balance mean a lack of power disparity? Does parity over time count as balance? Does it mean infrequent character death? Does it mean power is properly contained according to some kind of progression like levels?

How you answer those questions will affect whether you think balance is a good thing.

I think balance as a general concept is important, but for me it isn't the only thing. It needs to be weighed against other aims of the game. A game like 4E is what I mean when I say taking balance too far (i dont think it was balance done badly, it was balance taken too far).

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.

It's funny, I've seen both sides of this - in one campaign, one of my players was super keen to do everything, and through clever character creation had wound up with an edge in both combat and socially.  He was at the forefront of every challenge, setting the tempo and taking names.  Eventually I took  him aside and asked him to support the other players' efforts a little more, which he jumped on with equal enthusiasm.

Another time, at a con game, I saw what's almost the total opposite - one player spent a lot of the session complaining that his character didn't have any good skills, that everything he might do was a foregone failure, that he had no good options because of his character.  This, despite the fact that our characters were all maladapted to the situation (zombie survival game).

My problem with balance rules are twofold:

One, there's too many variables for them to take into account...I threw a Type VI demon at a party of avg. 3rd level types and they beat it.  Same group almost died facing 8 huge spiders.  Was a 3rd level party facing a demon with a host of unholy powers and 40-some hit points overmatched?  Were they more than a match for a bunch of spiders?  Yet there's the outcome...

Two, I worry "as optional" rules for new DMs means that these new DMs will stay stuck on those rules and they'll wind up as fetters not as an aid.

I don't need, or want a game to focus on this mythical balance. The only thing I need is for the game to have a solid set of rules, allowing me to "balance" it as I see fit.

I can see people coming from hardcore D&D and the like being concerned with this, but that is only because they're coming from a game where levels, CR's, optimalization and DPS are real things. Step away from that kind of game and balance is not an issue.
Some people are better at some things than others. Some people will be absolutely worthless in certain situations. Picking a fight with a scarred brawler twice your size is a bad idea, no matter how high your DEX is. Bringing a knife to a gunfight is an equally bad idea. Trying to scale a sheer surface using your "Air Guitar"-skill and a fatepoint simply isn't going to work.
If a game devotes pages trying to "fix" situations like this mechanically, chances are I won't be interested much.

Quote from: mcbobbo;679744Short answer, it depends.

If it's a game where the characters don't particularly matter.  Like sandbox AD&D, Paranoia or Cthulhu, then I'd advise against worrying too much about it.

If it has a charop metagame, like 3e, then heck yes.  Likewise if it is a tactical board game.

I suppose a big indicator would be how much time is spent on the 1" grid.

This.  Obviously a horribly balanced game will be disruptive, so a level of balance is good.  But it doesn't need to be perfectly balanced.  Too often in these types of discussions, and people railing against the "horrible balance" of games keep ignoring possibly the biggest thing ever about RPGs: they are played in free-form world.  RPGs are not played in an arena were each combatant is a set distance apart and regenerates all resources after every battle.

That has to be the stupidest way to judge an RPG that I've heard, and yet is what their argument almost always comes down to.  It is only true if you ignore how the game is actually played: in a living, breathing world that is constantly moving.

I'll give some examples of what I mean.

a) "Doing more damage per round is objectively the best because killing the creature faster is always better."

Wrong.  I have 22hp and deal an average of 5 hp per round,and my opponent has 22hp and does 5 hp per round.  I could increase my damage by 5 points, killing my opponent in 3 rounds instead of 5, taking 15 hp myself.  Or I could decrease the damage taken by 5, killing the opponent in 5 rounds, but not suffering any damage myself.  It's an argument dependent on refreshing all resources (hp) after every battle.

b) Gaining attribute bonus (+1 to attack, AC, and damage) is objectively better than taking a feat that gives you advantage on spot/listen checks and +5 initiative.

Wrong.  Those choices aren't happening in a vacuum.  That feat is easily paired with a class ability that says you get advantage to attack whenever you have the higher initiative.  And that ability is also paired with a class ability that allows you to add +xd6 damage whenever you give yourself disadvantage.
So instead of a flat +1 bonus to hit, AC, and damage, you have the choice of getting a +5 to hit and double chance for a critical (advantage), or to add +1 thru 5 d6 of damage (depending on sneak attack) roughly 75% of the time (the bonus to initiative making you go first most of the time)

c) "the wizard can do an average of 22hp damage per round with his spells.  The fighter can do 10.  The wizard also can replicate any ability of any other class.  Obviously the wizard is a lot better."

Wrong.  This argument often ignores things that mitigate the wizard's weaknesses.  Does the wizard have access to all of these spells to cast to begin with?  Did he learn them successfully?  Did he happen to memorize the right ones?  The wizard can't cast knock (or any other spell) indefinitely, so what happens if you have 4 locks that need opening in your session?  Is the wizard never in danger of being hit, with his low AC and HP?  Are his spells never interrupted?  Etc.


TL;DR: In a game where anything can happen and how we roleplay in that game is vastly more important than arena style balance where everything has to be perfect in a vacuum.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;679791TL;DR: In a game where anything can happen and how we roleplay in that game is vastly more important than arena style balance where everything has to be perfect in a vacuum.

Yeah.
"Fighters rock at low levels, wizards rock at High levels, clerics and thieves don't really rock but Are damn handy to have around" is balanced enough really, add "demihumans rock at low level but never Even get to High level unless thieves in wich case they on't rock that much anyway" and it's good to go.

I mean take the thief. Easily the weakest combatant. But, Even in 2e thieves still got XP for gp (and for using their skills) wich means a 2e thief, especially once his skills Get good (and in 2e this is less of an issue than in older editions) he doesn't really need to fight. A mid level thief with good Dex and focused skills can just waltz into the Dragon's lair, steal the best Treasure and run off, wich equals Treasure AND XP without a single round of combat (and if the Dragon avenges himself by torching the nearest village, well, the thief's a thief, he doesn't give a good goddamn :D).

Somewhere in this thread people have made a leap from talking about game balance to talking about perfect game balance and arena/vacuum game balance. That isn't how the thread started.

Quote from: soviet;679801Somewhere in this thread people have made a leap from talking about game balance to talking about perfect game balance and arena/vacuum game balance. That isn't how the thread started.

We are speaking in a vacuum though. What are some examples of balanced games in your opinion and imbalanced games.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;679804We are speaking in a vacuum though. What are some examples of balanced games in your opinion and imbalanced games.

I think that D&D 4e is a balanced game and D&D 3e is an imbalanced game.

And thinking about it that's a good comparison because they both try to do very similar things.

(This is not me arguing that 4e is the perfect ever game system or something BTW.)

(That would be Other Worlds :D)

Quote from: soviet;679806I think that D&D 4e is a balanced game and D&D 3e is an imbalanced game.

Okay. Those are two extreme ends i think. Do you think that the balance in 4E makes it a more enjoyable game?

For me, that is an example of exactly what people have in mind when they say. Balance is bad. I find 4E dull and unfun because of how balanced it is and how it is balanced. I find 3E fun and exciting, to some extent, because it has spikes and valleys in balance. So if those are my two choices, i would go with the less balanced 3E over the balanced 4E.

I do not think balance is bad, or that imbalance is good. I just think the kind of balance advanced by games like 4E tends to produce games I dont enjoy. I also think i am more open to balance that isnt so focused on parity. To me this is a classic case of balance not being weighed against other considerations, where the flavor of spells and spell casters lost a lot in an effort to make the game more balanced.

The simple, factual truth of the matter is that every player is different: Every player has a different notion of what is fun and not fun, every player likes to engage different levels of game play differenlty, including the rules themselves, which are just one tiny part of the equation, and NOT the whole equation itself, every player has different tastes, inclinations, intellect, and ways to use that intellect, some play to chill after a day's work, others not, etc.

So if you could somehow realize full, absolute theoretical rules balance on the printed page, these elements would come into play differently for each table and each player concerned, which means that the same feat in the hands of two different players would be used differently, and have different relevance, and usefulness, for each player concerned.

The ONLY way to mitigate this is to essentially can the gameplay, ensure that whoever is playing the game runs the exact same way, and that is a goal which I find is counter-intuitive, and really nocive, to the real, quintessential potential of roleplaying games as games of your imagination, to use the old TSR tag line. It's the polar opposite of what RPGs achieve that is unique compared to other game formats, and consequently, it is a notion that should be dragged in the barn at the end of the hobby's backyard and shot in the head once and for all, as far as I am concerned.

Conclusion: "game" (which really only means "rules" in today's parlance) balance is a theoretical pipe dream, and only BNGs with way too much time spent talking about games instead of, you know, playing them, will actually give a shit about this.

ACTUAL game balance (not just rules balance) is NOT necessarily a bad thing, but it can be achieved in many, many different ways, AND is not necessarily a prime component of a fun game to play for at least some people, as assymetric game design and organic/cultural developments have proven over centuries of actual game play.

It just depends on what you constitute as fun, and from there, what exactly you want to achieve with a particular design.

TL;DR: depends.

IME 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.

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.

Yep.

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.

I think they've done more than that; they actual harmed the hobby.

For a tabletop pencil and paper rpg game, the answer to the OP is not so obvious.

For a video game with an emphasis on combat, balance in the technical execution rules may very well be a huge emphasis.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;679774Does balance mean a lack of power disparity? Does parity over time count as balance?

Well, that would depend on how long each individual campaign lasts, which is a variable that you (Usually) can't control as an RPG author, ending a campaign is a table-level event.

For example, let's say our fighters are strong at low levels and fade at higher, wizards are strong at high levels but rubbish at lower.
If the campaign never gets to higher levels, the fighter is stronger all the way through. If the campaign gets to high levels, then the wizard is going to get more time being stronger the longer the campaign goes on. Is that fun for the fighter or the wizard? Maybe, maybe not. And if the fighter doesn't get to fight much during those early levels, was he ever in the area he was balanced for (Answer : no).

Better, IMO, to give everyone their own field of specialty and demonstrate to GM's how to include multiple ways of solving problems in their adventures, ie. balance by screen time over the course of an "adventure", however long that takes.

Quote from: ggroy;679821For a tabletop pencil and paper rpg game, the answer to the OP is not so obvious.

For a video game with an emphasis on combat, balance in the technical execution rules may very well be a huge emphasis.

Yep.  Also, a good, creative role-player will dance circles around an uncreative or uninvolved role-player in terms of what can be accomplished in the game, regardless of who has the "more powerful" character.

Because unlike a video game, face to face allows you to interact with the entire environment in a non-linear way.  Computers can't do that.  My older brother, way back in a 1e game, had a thief that ended up killing more than half of the total bandit force himself because of the way he stalked them and set up ambushes.

RPGs are not limited to +/- modifiers and stat blocks on a character sheet.

Quote from: Ladybird;679850Well, that would depend on how long each individual campaign lasts, which is a variable that you (Usually) can't control as an RPG author, ending a campaign is a table-level event.

For example, let's say our fighters are strong at low levels and fade at higher, wizards are strong at high levels but rubbish at lower.
If the campaign never gets to higher levels, the fighter is stronger all the way through. If the campaign gets to high levels, then the wizard is going to get more time being stronger the longer the campaign goes on. Is that fun for the fighter or the wizard? Maybe, maybe not. And if the fighter doesn't get to fight much during those early levels, was he ever in the area he was balanced for (Answer : no).

Better, IMO, to give everyone their own field of specialty and demonstrate to GM's how to include multiple ways of solving problems in their adventures, ie. balance by screen time over the course of an "adventure", however long that takes.

The problem with this solution is it punishes the people who like long campaigns with balance occurring over that timeframe, to accommodate people who do not play full length campaigns. My opinion is both are viable and you make the game based on what you think the norm is.

My issue isn't that I think balance is bad. It is that leading up to 4E and in its wake we have had a 'one size fits all' argument out there for balance (i.e. it is better to balance through field specialty than to balance over the course of the campaign....well that depends on the group, it may be better for you but isn't necessarily better for me).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;679861The problem with this solution is it punishes the people who like long campaigns with balance occurring over that timeframe, to accommodate people who do not play full length campaigns. My opinion is both are viable and you make the game based on what you think the norm is.

It doesn't "punish" anyone. It just works differently.

Defining "full length campaign" is the problem, though. As a game designer, you don't have much control over how many sessions a campaign lasts. Really, the best you can do is say "this game is designed assuming campaigns of this particular length. These classes are designed to be powerful early on, these later on. You may want to revise some things if you're playing a longer or shorter game, or even just play something else" (And you probably should say something like this, regardless of your game, because designer notes are interesting and help with system hacking later on).

Quote from: Ladybird;679870It doesn't "punish" anyone. It just works differently.

).

If it is one possible solution among many, sure. But if it is being held up as the only way to balance, then it does. My whole point is these are just different ways to balance. One size fits all, is a bad measure of game balance.

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 (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2500/roleplaying-games/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  (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=27412).

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.

Every time people say casters in AD&D are way over powered at name level, I think of this


(http://drawception.com/pub/panels/2012/4-27/zQkSaqKjD8-4.png)

Why?

Because in AD&D, you had:

* no guarantee of learning the spell
* no guarantee of finding the spell (magic users)
* no guarantee that your God would even grant the spell (clerics, and specifically called out that this can and will happen)
* no guarantee of having proper spell components
* any sort of disruption ruins the spell (pouch full of pebbles anyone?)
* super soft squishy primary target of enemies
* no scroll scribing spamming like in 3e
* couldn't use many magic items that were the realm of fighters

And I'm sure there are several others.  High level magic users do have the potential of doing some really powerful things, but there are a lot of limitations around them.  A 10th level MU doesn't have access to spells like Wish, Limited Wish, or Power Word spells that are often quoted in these types of discussions, and yet 10th level is often believed to be "high level'.

3e is the caster king edition. Making spell interruption near impossible, item creation... fucking wands man. Wands were absolutely retarded.

Yes, a good GM can reign all this stuff in. But if you want to talk about mechanical imbalances, 3e is where its at. And then 4e came in and went crazy the other direction.

(though yes, 4e is not PERFECTLY balanced either. But it did get rid of most trap options. I am curious what 1st level character Rooster thinks he could build that would solo a "5th level dungeon" though.)

Balance is OK but its not necessarily achieved without cost. I'm not always willing to pay the cost in fluff, character customization, or whatever.
4E thri-kreen for instance (4 arms = quick draw for free, wooo).

Quote from: The_Rooster;680010AD&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.

Seriously?

It is possible to select an initiative system that will make this less true (as it is hard to understand the 1E initiative system and the 2E has a number of options).  But spell interruption can make a big difference.  And remember that you could not penalize saving throws in 1E or 2E.  Casting while flying requires hovering or drifting.  There are no bonus spells.  

Is there really a 1E cleric spell that a 10th level cleric can cast that would actually scare an opponent.  A 10th level cleric has two fifth level spells under nearly any plausible scenario.  That is a 6d8 damage spell, save for half (which is AT LEAST 50% likely in 1E at those levels).  Or maybe a slay living spells, which also requires a save.  I don't see any decent buffs that don't work on the entire party.  Remember, one hit and the spell is ruined.  

Whereas a 10th level fighter has 1.5 attacks per round, likely has a +3 weapon and might well have a strength bonus.  If we can add in guantlets of ogre power, that is a pretty likely hit for 1d8+9 damage (presuming that you aren't using weapon specialization from UA).  At worst I would presume 1d8+3, all day long.  He has to hit, but he can't be interrupted either.  

That isn't a silly level of assumption.  I don't want to say that the cleric in AD&D is weak -- I found it a decent class.  But it really, really hard to imagine it dominating the way it did in D&D3.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;680026(though yes, 4e is not PERFECTLY balanced either. But it did get rid of most trap options. I am curious what 1st level character Rooster thinks he could build that would solo a "5th level dungeon" though.)

Clearly you never spent time on the CharOP boards. There are some seriously broken builds even at low levels. Wardens, for instance, could be amazingly powerful and pretty much bench the rest of the party while obliterating everything in their path.

It gets so much worse by paragon where synergistic combinations come into play.

The sad thing is that it's so easy to fix those issues with a few very minor tweaks and some banned combinations.

Quote from: The_Rooster;680061builds [...etcetera, etcetera] *snips.

It's like you are speaking some alien language or playing a totally different game. Indeed you are playing a totally different game. That's no offense, just that RPGs to me are nothing to do with builds, being the best or other related concepts. I could understand such things if I was playing a video games, but i don't and that is where such concepts should belong.

...I think there is a reason why I only seem to like D100 at the moment.

I 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.

Quote from: elfandghost;680068It's like you are speaking some alien language or playing a totally different game. Indeed you are playing a totally different game. That's no offense, just that RPGs to me are nothing to do with builds, being the best or other related concepts. I could understand such things if I was playing a video games, but i don't and that is where such concepts should belong.

I think you're missing the point.

Theory does not necessitate practice. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done. That's the essence of charop. Everyone looks at charop and thinks, "OMG! Those people don't know how to have fun or roleplay, they just make things broken and ruin the game!"

The point of charop isn't to ruin people's fun, it's to find the flaws in the game so that people's fun ISN'T ruined. Charoppers don't play those broken builds other than to test them. So just because I could create a 1st-level warden that was basically invincible, doesn't mean I should, or would do it in a regular game.

But the importance of finding those cracks and fixing them means that others can't abuse the system either and everyone exists on a more even playing field, whether they care about balance or not.

Quote from: elfandghost;680068That's no offense, just that RPGs to me are nothing to do with builds, being the best or other related concepts. I could understand such things if I was playing a video games, but i don't and that is where such concepts should belong.

...I think there is a reason why I only seem to like D100 at the moment.

The point of an RPG isn't char op metagaming.  It's to have a social interaction with other players in a fantasy/sci-fi game world where players play an archetype role that appeals to them.

Char Op balance should never be anywhere near a priority as actual game play experience.

Quote from: The_Rooster;680087I think you're missing the point.

Theory does not necessitate practice. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done. That's the essence of charop. Everyone looks at charop and thinks, "OMG! Those people don't know how to have fun or roleplay, they just make things broken and ruin the game!"

The point of charop isn't to ruin people's fun, it's to find the flaws in the game so that people's fun ISN'T ruined. Charoppers don't play those broken builds other than to test them. So just because I could create a 1st-level warden that was basically invincible, doesn't mean I should, or would do it in a regular game.

But the importance of finding those cracks and fixing them means that others can't abuse the system either and everyone exists on a more even playing field, whether they care about balance or not.

Can 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.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;680091The point of an RPG isn't char op metagaming.  It's to have a social interaction with other players in a fantasy/sci-fi game world where players play an archetype role that appeals to them.

Char Op balance should never be anywhere near a priority as actual game play experience.

Well exactly.

I generally like a game to be well built, but it doesn't have to be balanced, so long as every character gets a chance to shine and isn't squashing another persons fun.

Quote from: elfandghost;679739Following on from this thread  (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=27412).

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?

Mechanical balance: If a player has a mechanical choice in play, chargen, or advancement, that choice should have rough parity with the other options. Choices that are too bad to take or too good not to take aren't really choices. Where no choice exists, balance does not matter. At least to me, and at least so long as the disparity isn't something insane.

Scenario/setting balance: Players should have similar choices when engaging the setting or situation of the game. They should have the option prepare for challenges and pick and choose which challenges they face and how they face them. I'm more okay with some false choices here. There absolutely should be some cakewalks and some TPKs waiting to happen.

Mechanical/setting balance: If players can make mechanical choices about their characters' capabilities based on the challenges they want/expect to face, and can choose their challenges based on their characters' capabilities, I really see no need for hand-holding from myself as a GM. Seems to me like a good way for things to work.

Quote from: The_Rooster;680087I think you're missing the point.

Theory does not necessitate practice. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done. That's the essence of charop. Everyone looks at charop and thinks, "OMG! Those people don't know how to have fun or roleplay, they just make things broken and ruin the game!"

The point of charop isn't to ruin people's fun, it's to find the flaws in the game so that people's fun ISN'T ruined. Charoppers don't play those broken builds other than to test them. So just because I could create a 1st-level warden that was basically invincible, doesn't mean I should, or would do it in a regular game.

But the importance of finding those cracks and fixing them means that others can't abuse the system either and everyone exists on a more even playing field, whether they care about balance or not.

That is nice and all but fails to keep in mind that the purpose of a design is to model a setting or genre. A game can be flawed if to doesn't do what it supposed to do. For example having death rules that turn out to be too realistic in a RPG about Looney Tunes cartoon action.

Elves in the world of Middle Earth are superior to humans in every sense mechanically. Their limitations are  all roleplaying. The design of a RPG about Middle Earth the game needs to reflect that to faithfully reflect its setting.

Even general purpose RPGs like D&D, Runequest, etc, have to decide on a implied setting and design to it. This is because the RPGs are games where the players can attempt anything as their characters. This means there is no way an RPG can account for every situation that comes up in play.

Pun Pun the kolbold existed because the Charops folks combined several books and actions that made no sense in terms of the implied setting or even an explicit setting.

Again there can be mechanical issues with a design but Charops exploits are not one of them.

With that being said there is one area where rules should be designed with true mechanical balance in mind. The rules used for organized play. There it is essential for a fair and level playing field. However a company using organized play HAS to make this a separate rule book or handout. Or the main game will suffer from blandness and be stuck with a implied setting that both boring and makes no sense.

Quote from: fuseboy;679756I'm sure this has been chopped to death in other threads, but I find it interesting to ask what we're balancing?

The characters are have equal ______________________ (what?)

• relevance to the outcome of combats
• relevance to each sphere of action (e.g. everyone has something to do in combat, in diplomacy, in exploration, etc.)
• power, but in different spheres
• access to spheres that are most relevant to their character
• numbers of decisions to make
• connection to the campaign's events through their backstories or game history
• ability to affect what happens in the campaign
• focus around the playing table
• power in the game world in some absolute sense (e.g. political)
• some subtle combination of all these things, and more, that differs player by player

yes, this is what I saw immediately.
All games try to be somewhat balanced, but they balance around the fulcrum of the type of games the rules are meant for.

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 (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?698648-The-D-amp-D-Next-promise-that-was-abandoned) 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.

Also, 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 the number and type of encounters must be balanced in the adventuring day.  Largely because of how the powers are per-encounter and per day.  If I'm not mistaken, the 4e rules tell you explicitly how many encounters per day, and what level they should be.

For examples, you won't find a 3rd level party have an encounter with a single goblin.  Likewise, you won't have a 3rd level party have an encounter with level +6 monster either, regardless if that creature happens to be visiting the orc chieftain for some in-game plot.

For me, I don't think that is well balanced and I don't like it.  You're literally changing what would happen in a living game world to cater to party level.  Horrible metagaming.

D&D has gone from playing in a living fantasy world, to WoW-esque zones, and it was the DMs job to make sure the zones were always catered to the PCs.

Thankfully they seem to have realized their mistake and Next doesn't have this.

Quote from: The Traveller;680333It can be but it shouldn't have to be. Or rather imbalances should be minimised where possible.

The game should first make sure it gets the feel of whatever its trying to emulate right, then balance to a reasonable degree within that emulation. Making sure there isn't a way to piss all over someone elses good time just because you can isn't the games job. If we were talking about a competitive game, priorities would differ.

Quote from: The Traveller;680333Charop 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.

The ability to roleplay does not by itself, make an asshole. Likewise the ability to optimize. Getting the most out of the rules as written is a competitive aspect of gameplay. It might not be the traditional us vs them type of competition it could be the "look how awesome I am" contest. Once again, if this was competitive play then this would be a feature, not a bug.

Quote from: The Traveller;680333Who 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.

The more comprehensive and "complete" the rules, the more loopholes there are to worry about. Every time more content is added to the game, more loopholes are created until more time is spent playing whack-a-mole with loopholes than playing the game.

B/X is fairly loose and reasonably balanced. That doesn't mean it doesn't need the group to still equalize the balance.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;680344The game should first make sure it gets the feel of whatever its trying to emulate right, then balance to a reasonable degree within that emulation. Making sure there isn't a way to piss all over someone elses good time just because you can isn't the games job. If we were talking about a competitive game, priorities would differ.

A lot of things are going without saying here, including that a game about warrior mages should live up to its ambitions and have more of a focus on warrior mages than druids, but that's not the point. You seem to be setting this up as an either-or proposition which is very much not the case. Just because it's not possible to regulate out assholery entirely doesn't mean that designers should slop out any old crap without some regard for balance between broad options.

Also you again seem to be conflating someone who wants to choose the most powerful options with an asshole.

One oft forgotten example from D&D was the thief class. For the first few levels they were utterly crap at thieving, single digit percentages of achieving any of their abilities. In fact they'd most likely fail at everything until they were of quite a high level. Since thieving was all they did, nobody ever played a thief. That's a poor balancing act.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;680344Getting the most out of the rules as written is a competitive aspect of gameplay.

If you mean competing against the challenges they are likely to face rather than competing against other players, I agree.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;680344The more comprehensive and "complete" the rules, the more loopholes there are to worry about.

Only if you have shitty rules to start out with. A patch on top of a kludge on top of a bandage will of course leak. It reminds me of a guy I knew in school who told me that the longer an essay I wrote, the more mistakes I'd make. No my friend, the worse a writer you are the more mistakes you make.

Quote from: The Traveller;680356Also you again seem to be conflating someone who wants to choose the most powerful options with an asshole.

The determining factor is the reason for doing so.

Quote from: The Traveller;680356One oft forgotten example from D&D was the thief class. For the first few levels they were utterly crap at thieving, single digit percentages of achieving any of their abilities. In fact they'd most likely fail at everything until they were of quite a high level. Since thieving was all they did, nobody ever played a thief. That's a poor balancing act.

Even more oft forgotten was the notion that you could do things unless the rules forbid them instead of the other way around. As soon as the thief abilities showed up in supplement 1, it was assumed (incorrectly) that the thief was now the only class that could sneak around.

All of a sudden 3/4 of the adventuring population became unable to hide, be quiet, or even climb because these abilities showed up on a table that they didn't have access to. Thus the thief as a self justifying class was born.

The thief percentages were a supplement to the things everyone could do, not a replacement for them. Thus the thief got the same chance as anyone else to be quiet (even better than some due to the lighter armor, soft boots, etc.) AND a chance to move silently. Move silently was not a "stealth check". It meant what the frick it said, which was the same as if the character was wearing elven boots.

A gross misunderstanding of the rules does not make them unbalanced.  It is an indication that they could have been written more clearly though.

Quote from: The Traveller;680356If you mean competing against the challenges they are likely to face rather than competing against other players, I agree.

More likely an edge in the "being awesome" department. This includes the "doing everything better than everyone else because I can get the most out of the rules" department.

Quote from: The Traveller;680356Only if you have shitty rules to start out with. A patch on top of a kludge on top of a bandage will of course leak. It reminds me of a guy I knew in school who told me that the longer an essay I wrote, the more mistakes I'd make. No my friend, the worse a writer you are the more mistakes you make.

What I'm try to explain is that "shitty" is subjective depending on the group. If there were an objective level of shitty then no group could play with all the terrible broken rulesets being played with every day.

If your #1 rpg rule goal at the commencement of design is the prevention of anyone being a dick via the mechanics should they desire, your game has failed before design begins.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;680372The thief percentages were a supplement to the things everyone could do, not a replacement for them.

All that does is make thief abilities even less attractive. You're not helping your case here.

Thieves were brutally poor at the only things they had that others hadn't (and now you're saying everyone had them as well) as a result of which there was zero point in playing a low level or even a mid level thief. More often a group would have had to bail them out since some of their abilities had to do with finding and disarming traps, or sneaking into fortified areas.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;680372More likely an edge in the "being awesome" department.

More awesome is a bad thing now?

In most games we fight powerful enemies, sometimes powerful because there are lots of them, sometimes because they are more powerful, sometimes both. Choosing to increase your chances of success against these challenges is not the mark of a showboating dickhead. Showboating dickheads may also choose that route but the two are not mutually dependent. Obviously.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;680372What I'm try to explain is that "shitty" is subjective depending on the group. If there were an objective level of shitty then no group could play with all the terrible broken rulesets being played with every day.

The thief class was shitty. It's an excellent example of why baking a little balance into character options is a good idea.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;680372If your #1 rpg rule goal at the commencement of design is the prevention of anyone being a dick via the mechanics should they desire, your game has failed before design begins.

Are you saying anyone who picks a more powerful class is a dick? Because it sounds like that's what you're saying.

Anyway when push comes to shove my main point is this: the amount of effort a group should have to spend compensating for poor rule balance in character creation should be and can be minimised. Disagree if you like but I'm very comfortable with it.

Quote from: The Traveller;680381Anyway when push comes to shove my main point is this: the amount of effort a group should have to spend compensating for poor rule balance in character creation should be and can be minimised. Disagree if you like but I'm very comfortable with it.

When that compensation minimization gets to a certain level you get 4E, a game that is all about balance first, and the actual game second. You get something that no longer really resembles the game it is supposed to be.

I would rather get the world feel that I want and compromise with the group to achieve balance.

When balance gets priority one you end up with stupid shit such as flying monsters unable to do chew gum and actually fly at the same time because melee builds will feel deprotagonized fighting a flying enemy. WTF?

I hate builds with a passion because they breed the kind of niche specialization that in turn leads to entitlement, which then become rules that turn an immersive world into a turd all in the name of balance.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;680405When that compensation minimization gets to a certain level you get 4E, a game that is all about balance first, and the actual game second. You get something that no longer really resembles the game it is supposed to be.

I honestly don't know enough about 4E to be able to comment on the system, although from the little I know it sounds like a minmaxer's paradise. It sounds as though the game is trying to compensate by spiking everyone up in ability, not levelling them out, which is my preferred approach; 4E is pandering to munchkinry in other words, rather than being the end result of this train of thought.

Characters in my games start at a very decent level of competence straight out the starting gate, but the rules are set up so that even a champion swordsman isn't going to be able to tackle a dozen orcs head on, at least not without locking them in a tavern and setting it on fire first. It's also laughably impossible to gauge how many and how powerful encounters a group can handle on any given day, because their chosen tactics are going to be far more important than their raw skills.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;680405When balance gets priority one you end up with stupid shit such as flying monsters unable to do chew gum and actually fly at the same time because melee builds will feel deprotagonized fighting a flying enemy. WTF?

And I'm certainly not saying that monsters need to be balanced.

Quote from: The TravellerIf 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.

Let me just say +1.

These sound right out of my own playbook, and I heartily endorse them.  The game should be balanced so different roles/classes/groups can contribute in the game area the game is built for, combat, social, research, underworld, or whatever.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;680241Games 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 (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?698648-The-D-amp-D-Next-promise-that-was-abandoned) 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.

The fundemental difference between level 1 combat in 1E and 4E is that level 1 (sometimes higher) characters can be one-shot in 1E, and it takes at least two hits in 4E.

1E also phases in 'save or die' effects that in 4E take 2-3 or mor erounds and multiple saves to kill you, and are likely weaker than that even.

I decree that means 1E is more lethal.



The argument on that posted thread that 1E and 4E are equally lethal seems to have a logic flaw.  Just because everyone has more hp, it does not make the combat 'equally lethal'   Well, I don't think so anyway.

I find myself agreeing a lot with Traveller in this thread and I feel funny about it. :eek:

Quote from: Sacrosanct;680341One thing I hear often from 4e fans is that the number and type of encounters must be balanced in the adventuring day.  Largely because of how the powers are per-encounter and per day.  If I'm not mistaken, the 4e rules tell you explicitly how many encounters per day, and what level they should be.

Whether you mean it to be or not, this is a textbook example of a strawman argument. Instead of discussing things people have actually said you're arguing against things no-one in this thread has said and things that the published 4e books do not contain. I like 4e, feel free to ask me a question if you want.

Quote from: soviet;680447Whether you mean it to be or not, this is a textbook example of a strawman argument. Instead of discussing things people have actually said you're arguing against things no-one in this thread has said and things that the published 4e books do not contain. I like 4e, feel free to ask me a question if you want.

First, 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.

Secondly, there is a discussion  (https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/101509275664581560702)on the G+ D&D Next forum where they do say what I paraphrased.

Quote from: The Traveller;680419And I'm certainly not saying that monsters need to be balanced.

The whole point of the rule isn't about monster vs party balance.  Its about player to player balance.

Because of the "need" for all character types to contribute equally in all combats, monsters can only "hop" as flight while fighting. This has less to do with overall monster power than it does making sure the melee focused builds get to use their primary powers.

It is subverting the way the setting works in the name of balance. It all begins with builds and the entitlement attitude that the world will indeed conform to my build in order to make sure I am more awesome.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;680405I hate builds with a passion because they breed the kind of niche specialization that in turn leads to entitlement, which then become rules that turn an immersive world into a turd all in the name of balance.

God, this so much.  Everyone wants "weapon specialization", but forget that it just moves the baseline up, and makes you incompetent with everything else.

I like rules that push decision-making to table-time, and away from build-time.

Quote from: The Traveller;680419I honestly don't know enough about 4E to be able to comment on the system, although from the little I know it sounds like a minmaxer's paradise. It sounds as though the game is trying to compensate by spiking everyone up in ability, not levelling them out, which is my preferred approach; 4E is pandering to munchkinry in other words, rather than being the end result of this train of thought.

No, I think 3.x is the minmax paradise.  I look at overall balance as a few things:

1) How effective is a "baseline" build - that is, a build that a newbie to the system, making "logical" choices would make?
2) How much more powerful is an optimized build?
3) Can optimization make a character that's more effective in what "should be" his weak areas than a baseline character that specializes in those areas?
4) Can most characters contribute in most scenarios, in at least some way?

I think that by all of those criteria, 3.x is "worse" than 4e, whatever other faults 4e may have.

Quote from: The Traveller;680419It's also laughably impossible to gauge how many and how powerful encounters a group can handle on any given day, because their chosen tactics are going to be far more important than their raw skills.

This is ideal.  Again, I prefer table decisions to build decisions.

Quote from: LordVreeg;680431These sound right out of my own playbook, and I heartily endorse them.  The game should be balanced so different roles/classes/groups can contribute in the game area the game is built for, combat, social, research, underworld, or whatever.

Absolutely.  Balance really only becomes a serious issue when that's not true.  When some players are twiddling their thumbs, there's a problem.  And when they feel outshined in their areas of specialties by other characters that aren't specialists in that area, there's also a problem.

Quote from: Bill;680435The fundemental difference between level 1 combat in 1E and 4E is that level 1 (sometimes higher) characters can be one-shot in 1E, and it takes at least two hits in 4E.

More like 3-4.  That's one of the things I *like* about 4e as compared to 3.x.  It's very realistic that the game has changed from the "paleo" campaigns where death was common and cheap, and players had a portfolio of characters.  From what I've seen, most GMs today won't kill a character due to a random roll, and will fudge the dice instead.  So actually having the mechanics support that is, I think, a good thing, if "not killing 1st level characters on a single bad roll" is in fact how you're playing.

Quote from: Bill;6804351E also phases in 'save or die' effects that in 4E take 2-3 or mor erounds and multiple saves to kill you, and are likely weaker than that even.

Yeah, 4e pretty much gets rid of Save-Or-Die, and Save-Or-Suck effects.

Quote from: Bill;680435I decree that means 1E is more lethal.

I don't think anyone in their right mind could really argue that.  Of course, any game is as lethal as the opposition you face, but what 4e gets rid of is a lot of the "instadeath" that was common in earlier versions.

Quote from: Bill;680435The argument on that posted thread that 1E and 4E are equally lethal seems to have a logic flaw.  Just because everyone has more hp, it does not make the combat 'equally lethal'   Well, I don't think so anyway.

There's a couple of things that 4e does differently, that makes comparisons somewhat sketchy.  It gets rid of the vast majority of the "boom you're dead" kind of effects, and vastly increases the "unconscious" zone.  But on the other hand, the game isn't really designed around the idea of your hit points getting slowly worn down over the course of the day.  If you're looking at relatively "even" challenges, characters should get knocked out pretty much every fight.  They just get back up.  The system seems to be designed to make more fights feel like they're on the edge and increase the impression of danger.

You can still kill characters, of course.  Difficult encounters will do that, and I've seen characters die in "even challenges" by doing stupid things.  But the "insta-death" scenarios are mostly gone.

Quote from: elfandghost;679739Following on from this thread  (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=27412).

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?

No balance needed.

Play the role that you want to play.

If one guy wants to initiate an arms race, then it will eventually reach a ridiculous level, and that's that.

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 ;).

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. :D/: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!!! :D). 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. :D/: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!!! :D). 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.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;680344If we were talking about a competitive game, priorities would differ.

The campaigns for which the original D&D rules were written involved a significant element of competition among players. They are nonetheless very far from the kind of competitive balance to be found for instance in The Fantasy Trip (or more modern systems generally).

The latter kind also inherently serves at least one aspect of non-competitive, "spotlight" balance.

Quote from: Bill;680720I 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.

It's also different priorities.

For some people, charop is one of their main attractions to the game.  Having Fighters be good at fighting is almost an anti-feature, as they want to show off how awesome they are by actually building a character that's good at Fighting.  If it's just as easy as "take this class, and keep leveling it", then there's no point, in their minds.

Now, that's not an attitude I have any interest in, but I can understand that it exists.

Quote from: The Traveller;680381The thief class was shitty. It's an excellent example of why baking a little balance into character options is a good idea.

I agree that it's a good idea, but let us not insist on limiting options only to those that fit a mold. The Thief class was not originally intended for players steeped in the attitudes informing perception of supplemental materials today.

Early weakness in exchange for late strength was not 'unbalanced' in the kind of game for which the OD&D rules were written. That said, the Hobbit ("should anyone wish to play one") was notably disadvantaged all told, and arguably so was the Thief.

In the original context, this was not so bad. For one thing, one could always recruit a Thief NPC, just as one could hire a locksmith in town. It was not necessary that every butcher, baker and candlestick maker should be as good at slaying monsters and such as a Fighting Man, Cleric or Magic-User, and the Thief was basically another (if more fantastic) tradesman.

For another thing, it was not a matter of a Monolithic Party in every session like the cast of a TV serial, nor was dungeon-delving the sole activity of interest. The game was more a matter of a sum of histories of multiple characters, who might get up to all sorts of things.

Quote from: Phillip;680833I agree that it's a good idea, but let us not insist on limiting options only to those that fit a mold. The Thief class was not originally intended for players steeped in the attitudes informing perception of supplemental materials today.

It wasn't intended for players at all from the looks of it.

Quote from: Phillip;680833Early weakness in exchange for late strength was not 'unbalanced' in the kind of game for which the OD&D rules were written.

Seriously, have you looked at the thief percentages. By the time they are even halfway to competent everyone else is either ruling fiefdoms or lashing about the place with meteor swarms. And that's all they get. Weird for a game built solidly on stealing things.

Quote from: Phillip;680833For one thing, one could always recruit a Thief NPC, just as one could hire a locksmith in town.

Why? A sixth level magic user could do most of what a thief was meant to be able to do without even having to roll for it. Automatic success, often at a distance, and much more besides.

There is literally no way to fig leaf this, the thief class is useless compared to the rest out of the book and so makes a good example of an imbalanced character option.

Quote from: Phillip;680833For another thing, it was not a matter of a Monolithic Party in every session like the cast of a TV serial

I think that's the key thing that people miss.  While a lot of the early games *did* start out as pure dungeon-crawls (easy way to tell: MegaDungeon in/under/near a major city), the "monolithic party" wasn't really a major part of play.  And that made a lot of things make more sense:  "weak early, strong later", alignment grouping restrictions, easy death, long periods of time to do certain things, etc.

Forgotten Realms is pretty clearly a campaign that developed this way - you've got the MegaDungeon under the city (Undermountain/Waterdeep), you've got the plethora of levelled NPCS (aka: retired characters), a bunch of organizations for PCs to join, and a rather organic campaign world development.

I'm a strongly believer that you can't *really* understand early versions of D&D without having played in at least one campaign that works that way.  I was fortunate enough to play in one in the early-to-mid 90s that was winding down, but you could still see the patterns.  It's a style of play I'd very much like to be involved in again.

Quote from: The Traveller;680840Seriously, have you looked at the thief percentages. By the time they are even halfway to competent everyone else is either ruling fiefdoms or lashing about the place with meteor swarms. And that's all they get. Weird for a game built solidly on stealing things.

The thief was also the only class that didn't have attribute prereqs.  It's what you did if your random stats sucked.  It worked in paleo games because, hey, you probably ended up playing the wizard next week anyway.

It doesn't work well with modern campaigns and modern campaign assumptions.

Quote from: The Traveller;680840There is literally no way to fig leaf this, the thief class is useless compared to the rest out of the book and so makes a good example of an imbalanced character option.

By any modern definition, I couldn't agree more.  In much the same way that the wizard starting weak and ending ZOMGPOWERFUL doesn't really work in modern games.

It had a place in paleo campaigns.  Sometimes managing to level the shitty character with the crap stats was its own pleasure.  And since you likely had a binder full of women^H^H^H^H^H characters, it wasn't a big deal to either have a weak one, or if the weak one died.

Quote from: Bill;680435The fundemental difference between level 1 combat in 1E and 4E is that level 1 (sometimes higher) characters can be one-shot in 1E, and it takes at least two hits in 4E.

Not from a sufficiently high-level foe, I think. Also, you can take additional 'hits' from Ongoing Damage (or whatever it's called). Racking up the failed saves might take a while, but it happened pretty quickly to a figure killed by "friendly fire" in the first game I played, and there was apparently nothing to be done to prevent it.

QuoteI decree that means 1E is more lethal.

Maybe less so* in practice? 4E seems cunningly designed to give the impression, just about every single fight, that the PCs are in desperate peril -- and then have them come back handily to win a victory. I've seen players who thereby had no reverse gear, even when things were more actually bad (which they easily could be in a local campaign). Another impression I have about 4E is that when things go pear-shaped, they can get FUBAR fast.

*(edit) I don't mean less lethal than 4E; I mean not so much more lethal as one might expect.

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.

If you don't adjust the costs of various things in a points-system game such as one using Hero System or GURPS, then a campaign that's notably different from the design assumptions is likely to have have weird 'unbalanced' artifacts.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;679791a) "Doing more damage per round is objectively the best because killing the creature faster is always better."

Wrong.  I have 22hp and deal an average of 5 hp per round,and my opponent has 22hp and does 5 hp per round.  I could increase my damage by 5 points, killing my opponent in 3 rounds instead of 5, taking 15 hp myself.  Or I could decrease the damage taken by 5, killing the opponent in 5 rounds, but not suffering any damage myself.  It's an argument dependent on refreshing all resources (hp) after every battle.

And a mere three additional hit points (objectively a smaller number than five) gives you an extra round to survive in case the opponent gets a lucky roll or pulls off some special attack.

Quotec) "the wizard can do an average of 22hp damage per round with his spells.  The fighter can do 10.  The wizard also can replicate any ability of any other class.  Obviously the wizard is a lot better."

Wrong.  This argument often ignores things that mitigate the wizard's weaknesses.  Does the wizard have access to all of these spells to cast to begin with?  Did he learn them successfully?  Did he happen to memorize the right ones?  The wizard can't cast knock (or any other spell) indefinitely, so what happens if you have 4 locks that need opening in your session?  Is the wizard never in danger of being hit, with his low AC and HP?  Are his spells never interrupted?  Etc.

Along with weapon vs AC, this is the most ignored balancing feature of AD&D.

Thieves are useful in 1e for the one simple reason that you want to be able to try to open a lock without trying to break it, and magic-users don't have infinite spell slots or all the spells that they want like in Amazon.com 3e. Every knock or fly or improved invisibility spell is a spell that isn't killing monsters. If your magic-user is subbing for the thief you are doing the 15-minute adventuring day ("woops, out of knock spells, back to the camp guys").

Quote from: The Traveller;680840It wasn't intended for players at all from the looks of it.


Seriously, have you looked at the thief percentages. By the time they are even halfway to competent everyone else is either ruling fiefdoms or lashing about the place with meteor swarms. And that's all they get. Weird for a game built solidly on stealing things.


Why? A sixth level magic user could do most of what a thief was meant to be able to do without even having to roll for it. Automatic success, often at a distance, and much more besides.

There is literally no way to fig leaf this, the thief class is useless compared to the rest out of the book and so makes a good example of an imbalanced character option.

I need to preface this with the fact that I agree with this.  So the comments made are minor differences, but I agree for the most part.

The thief class was underpowered, but in certain game styles, did ok.  One of the roles that is oft-overlooked is the critical position, for hours of game time in a span, of the silent, unseen scout.  Quieter, more unseen, able to traverse tough terrain, more perceptive (especially in hearing), underpowered or not, a party without a thief did not survive in my settings.  Someone, and often more than one, had to be there to scout ahead.  Read that again.  DID NOT SURVIVE.  
(and this is the case still for me, a group that does not scout ahead does not survive adventuring).

The thief was also one of the classes that had skills that affected the in-town game more heavily.  Picking pockets was clearly part of this, but the ability to start a guild and attract underthieves at 160,00k experience put the thief in the thick of any in-town adventures long before the other classes started their own groupings.  

And while clerics and magic users could do some of the same things, it was a crappy use of a spell slot, especially when the party checked for traps 20+ times a day when adventuring.

Quote from: Imp;680861Thieves are useful in 1e for the one simple reason that you want to be able to try to open a lock without trying to break it, and magic-users don't have infinite spell slots or all the spells that they want like in Amazon.com 3e. Every knock or fly or improved invisibility spell is a spell that isn't killing monsters. If your magic-user is subbing for the thief you are doing the 15-minute adventuring day ("woops, out of knock spells, back to the camp guys").

In addition to this and other points already made, consider the XP tables. The thief might be considered weak but look how swift progression is.

While the MU and fighter are still out in bush scaping by, the thief will have a hideout, and some mooks to use for income, and information gathering.

Once again, if the assumption is that all characters stick together like an ensemble TV cast and level up at the same pace, a lot of stuff doesn't work.

Quote from: robiswrong;680841I think that's the key thing that people miss....
I'm a strongly believer that you can't *really* understand early versions of D&D without having played in at least one campaign that works that way.

I'll second that.

QuoteThe thief was also the only class that didn't have attribute prereqs.

Actually, at that time the Paladin was the only class in the books (as opposed to magazines) that had literal prerequisites. Supplement I did, however, make Intelligence very important for MUs, and gave big bonuses for Fighters with exceptional Strength, Constitution or Dexterity.

QuoteIt worked in paleo games because, hey, you probably ended up playing the wizard next week anyway.

It doesn't work well with modern campaigns and modern campaign assumptions.

...In much the same way that the wizard starting weak and ending ZOMGPOWERFUL doesn't really work in modern games.

Apparently neither do Hobbits who, like their literary prototypes, will never be a match for Conan the Cimmerian in his prime. That's an example of valuing 'emulation' above 'balance'.

Quote from: Phillip;680878Actually, at that time the Paladin was the only class in the books (as opposed to magazines) that had literal prerequisites. Supplement I did, however, make Intelligence very important for MUs, and gave big bonuses for Fighters with exceptional Strength, Constitution or Dexterity.

I was referring to AD&D 1e, so that's probably where we're differing.

Quote from: Imp;680861Thieves are useful in 1e for the one simple reason that you want to be able to try to open a lock without trying to break it, and magic-users don't have infinite spell slots or all the spells that they want like in Amazon.com 3e.

If it fails 90%+ of the time, it's not useful.

Quote from: LordVreeg;680863The thief class was underpowered, but in certain game styles, did ok.  One of the roles that is oft-overlooked is the critical position, for hours of game time in a span, of the silent, unseen scout.

Except they were terrible at moving quietly too. If I recall correctly about the only thing they had any chance of doing was climbing walls, and hey, rope+grapnel. Plus they weren't really very good at even that.

Quote from: Phillip;680878Actually, at that time the Paladin was the only class in the books (as opposed to magazines) that had literal prerequisites.

Yeah, I don't think paleoboy ever actually played older games.

The thief was and remains a great example of why a little mechanical balance goes a long way.

Quote from: The Traveller;680896The thief was and remains a great example of why a little mechanical balance goes a long way.

If you apply modern play assumptions to a class designed for a different set of assumptions certainly.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;680904If you apply modern play assumptions to a class designed for a different set of assumptions certainly.

What play assumptions? That you'll fail almost all the time while other people are slinging magics and hobnobbing with the gods?

I can't imagine a more depressing existence than being a thief under that system, oh hey failed to pick that lock, why don't I scale this... whoops, fell down. Nice fireball by the way, and Ulgrund really dig the way you heroically decapitated that umber hulk. Why don't I just hang back from this fight because let's face it I couldn't backstab my way out of a wet paper bag and, oh darn it, looks like I walked into a pit trap. Ah well, time to roll up another character.

Maybe this time, not a thief.

Quote from: The Traveller;680896Yeah, I don't think paleoboy ever actually played older games.

Awww, how cute.  Doubly dismissive - a condescending nickname as well as responding to someone else about me, instead of me!

And yeah, I have played the older games, at least as far back as AD&D 1e and B/X (Moldvay/Cook).  Haven't played older than that, admittedly.

Most of my old-school campaign experience was with a homebrew system that was a combination of The Fantasy Trip and AD&D 1e with a bunch of other stuff added in.  Or, at least that's what the system was by the time I got to playing in that campaign.  Not fully D&D, true, but it was a chance to get a first-hand look at how at least some campaigns were run by adults in the 70s.

Quote from: The Traveller;680896If it fails 90%+ of the time, it's not useful.

At low levels, it wasn't guaranteed.  Nothing is.

QuoteExcept they were terrible at moving quietly too. If I recall correctly about the only thing they had any chance of doing was climbing walls, and hey, rope+grapnel. Plus they weren't really very good at even that.

A greater than 0% chance of failure isn't 'terrible'.

Quote from: robiswrong;680914Awww, how cute.  Doubly dismissive - a condescending nickname as well as responding to someone else about me, instead of me!

Almost as condescending as calling them paleogames, you might say.

Quote from: StormBringer;680915At low levels, it wasn't guaranteed.  Nothing is.

Stormbringer, meet sleep and magic missile.

Quote from: The Traveller;680896If it fails 90%+ of the time, it's not useful.


Except they were terrible at moving quietly too. If I recall correctly about the only thing they had any chance of doing was climbing walls, and hey, rope+grapnel. Plus they weren't really very good at even that.

Quotewell, 10% is a little bit an exaggeration for most skills, though without the racial bonuses and dexterity bonuses, it was pretty crappy.  Just like saying that ,'you'll fail most of the time while others are hobnobbing with gods'.  

That being said, I will bet you one of the first adjudications that I made some 30+  years ago was that I gave environmental bonuses to thieving skills in more optimal situations.  I still do it today.  Not saying I was not bending the rules to make the thief better, which is your point.  Just saying that I tried to balance him in the fulcrum of the type of gaming I was doing.

Quote from: The Traveller;680840Seriously, have you looked at the thief percentages. By the time they are even halfway to competent everyone else is either ruling fiefdoms or lashing about the place with meteor swarms. And that's all they get. Weird for a game built solidly on stealing things.

First off, scouting (see LordVreeg's post below). If you want to stumble around a dungeon fighting whatever you encounter, you will die.

And the thief was the class for people who didn't especially feel like having a combat-heavy character. Only an idiot would make a thief and then complain that he wasn't effective in combat. They weren't supposed to be. They were supposed to sneak around cities, the wilderness, and dungeons, and find out what was going on. They were supposed to expose themselves to greater risks with traps, climbing, etc. in exchange for skimming a bit off the top.

Furthermore, AD&D was a magic-item-heavy game. That 6th level thief is likely going to have stuff like an elven cloak, boots of levitation, cloak of the spider, bracers of defence, necklace of water-breathing, various potions, etc. He should have all of the exploration and stealth gear the party acquires. That means he can cruise around independently and investigate everything he wants, and also escape peril far easier than other PCs. I've had more than one virtual TPK where the only survivor was the thief.

In AD&D I saw a lot more players take thiefs than magic-users simply because they liked a 50 per cent change of surviving levels 1-2 better than a 25 per cent chance.

Quote from: The Traveller;680840Why? A sixth level magic user could do most of what a thief was meant to be able to do without even having to roll for it. Automatic success, often at a distance, and much more besides.

What kind of a dolt of a player is going to select knock as a 2nd level spell over web or mirror image? Maybe you take one if you're venturing into some famed vault or dwarven city that is known to have strong gates. But that's one. In an old-school dungeon a thief will be unlocking doors and chests 10-15 times a session.

Quote from: LordVreeg;680863The thief class was underpowered, but in certain game styles, did ok.  One of the roles that is oft-overlooked is the critical position, for hours of game time in a span, of the silent, unseen scout.  Quieter, more unseen, able to traverse tough terrain, more perceptive (especially in hearing), underpowered or not, a party without a thief did not survive in my settings.  Someone, and often more than one, had to be there to scout ahead.  Read that again.  DID NOT SURVIVE.  
(and this is the case still for me, a group that does not scout ahead does not survive adventuring).

Exactly. A magic-user can sneak around invisible and use spells to scope out threats. But each of those spells is a combat spell not available in his arsenal.

Quote from: The Traveller;680917Stormbringer, meet sleep and magic missile.

Sleep is usable once or so a day, only affects 4-16 1HD creatures (far less as the HD increases) and doesn't affect Elves, undead, and several others I am forgetting.  

Magic Missile does a whopping 2-5 damage once a day.

'No saving throw' does not mean 'no chance of failure'.  That Magic Missile can barely threaten an average Orc; hardly a raging success.  And those same Orcs are typically encountered in groups of 20-200, so even the maximum amount affected by Sleep is hardly a victory.

Do we really have to focus on the absolute smallest detail, as though that invalidates everything?

Quote from: Haffrung;680926First off, scouting (see LordVreeg's post below). If you want to stumble around a dungeon fighting whatever you encounter, you will die.

If you have a thief scouting you're almost guaranteed to alert anything ahead after repeated failures to move quietly.

Quote from: Haffrung;680926They were supposed to expose themselves to greater risks with traps, climbing, etc. in exchange for skimming a bit off the top.

The only way a thief was going to detect traps before reaching higher levels was if you put a blindfold on the poor bastard and made him walk twenty feet ahead of the group.

Quote from: Haffrung;680926Furthermore, AD&D was a magic-item-heavy game. That 6th level thief is likely going to have stuff like an elven cloak, boots of levitation, cloak of the spider, bracers of defence, necklace of water-breathing, various potions, etc.

So, a bit like every other character then?

Quote from: Haffrung;680926In an old-school dungeon a thief will be unlocking doors and chests 10-15 times a session.

/facepalm

Quote from: The Traveller;680909I can't imagine a more depressing existence than being a thief under that system, oh hey failed to pick that lock, why don't I scale this... whoops, fell down. Nice fireball by the way, and Ulgrund really dig the way you heroically decapitated that umber hulk. Why don't I just hang back from this fight because let's face it I couldn't backstab my way out of a wet paper bag and, oh darn it, looks like I walked into a pit trap. Ah well, time to roll up another character.

You're describing the experience of a level 1-3 thief. Is a level 1-3 magic-user much better? Low-level characters in AD&D are pretty inept all around. But in a game with high-mortality, don't underestimate the appeal of having the fastest character - both in foot-speed, and in speed of leveling up. We had a lot of campaigns where the 3th level thief mentored another group of level 1 characters after his earlier companions bit the dust.

Quote from: StormBringer;680928Do we really have to focus on the absolute smallest detail, as though that invalidates everything?

You said nothing was guaranteed at a lower level, I pointed out that a couple of spells had no saving throw. You also said greater than 0% was not terrible odds. 0% isn't terrible odds, it's no odds. To emphasise it a bit more, let's roll a d20. Every time a 1 comes up, I'll give you ten bucks. Every other time, you give me twenty. Would you say those odds are terrible or otherwise?

Quote from: The Traveller;680930So, a bit like every other character then?

The magic weapons and armor are going to be divided among the fighters and clerics. The misc items and some protection items among the magic-users. A thief will have most of the hiding/moving/escaping gear. That means he will be effectively equipped to carry out the crucial role of scouting. It also makes him more survivable in a game where PCs die a lot.

This isn't a DPS comparison. PCs in AD&D had fundamentally different roles.

Quote from: Haffrung;680936A thief will have most of the hiding/moving/escaping gear.

Why? It will work just as well on a magic user or fighter, and unlike a thief they aren't third wheels. You're talking about balancing out the character's abilities with magical items that could be used by anyone else. Surely you must see it's a better idea to start the thief out at a base 50% in most abilities, push it up by 10% per level, maxing out at 200% and adjusting for the difficulty of the task? Not to mention a whole variety of additional level related bonuses. That's how you'd balance on the thief, not by depending on the largesse of fellow players and the GM.

Quote from: Haffrung;680936This isn't a DPS comparison. PCs in AD&D had fundamentally roles.

I'm mostly referring to the blue book expert set rulebook since that's where I had the most experience, but my point is that as a class the thief represented itself very poorly when compared to any other class. It's a textbook case of little to no thought being given to balance.

Quote from: The Traveller;680930If you have a thief scouting you're almost guaranteed to alert anything ahead after repeated failures to move quietly.


The only way a thief was going to detect traps before reaching higher levels was if you put a blindfold on the poor bastard and made him walk twenty feet ahead of the group.


So, a bit like every other character then?


/facepalm

Methinks he doth protest too much.

It was like every character in that he had the gear to enhance his abilities.  so long before our fabled godhobnob (I did say that), our thief has the tools needed to have very high chances of successful scouting.   Basically, at the same amount of experience, the thief was weaker in many games, but competent as a scout, with skills commensurate.  Don't forget, skill+racial+dex+magiic.  The rest of the group is casting fireballs?  The thief is 60-80% on most scouting skills (if not higher with boots and cloaks of elvenkind).  

Trust me, with lots of games, especially with a  mediocre or worse GM or combat centric game, the thief could be a drag.  But with a good GM and an exploration based game, he was very popular in my games.

Quote from: LordVreeg;680942Trust me, with lots of games, especially with a  mediocre or worse GM or combat centric game, the thief could be a drag.  But with a good GM and an exploration based game, he was very popular in my games.

Which is what I was saying about tailoring things for your party.  If you have a thief, lock some things that weren't locked before.  If you don't, have the bad guy carry keys.  Etc.

Quote from: LordVreeg;680942Don't forget, skill+racial+dex+magiic.

Aside from the fact that I'm not talking about AD&D, you can achieve the same effect by giving the magic to any other character. You changed things around to make the thief more effective in your game, good for you, that supports exactly what I'm saying so I've no idea what we're arguing about.

Quote from: The Traveller;680947Aside from the fact that I'm not talking about AD&D, you can achieve the same effect by giving the magic to any other character. You changed things around to make the thief more effective in your game, good for you, that supports exactly what I'm saying so I've no idea what we're arguing about.

a) Yes, I was, though it holds true, those less so.
b) I agreed to that.  I said so in the first place I agreed to a large degree, but you've just gone way too far down the continuum of thief suckitude.

Quote from: The Traveller;680917Almost as condescending as calling them paleogames, you might say.

Except that if you've actually read anything I've written, it should be pretty obvious that I *like* that style of game.  Hell, I'd love to find one that actually ran that way.  I'm half-considering making a two-hour drive on weekends to play with my old GM.

I only call it "paleo" to differentiate from "old-school", which is what a lot of people consider what they did when they were ten and picked up their Basic D&D box at the store.  You know, like I did before I got a chance to play in a "paleo" game.

Quote from: The Traveller;680896If it fails 90%+ of the time, it's not useful.

Except that, IIRC, you had multiple retries with open lock.  So it wasn't so much a question of "can I do it" as "how long will it take, and will bad monsters find us during that time".

At least, OSRIC says retries are allowed - I'll have to check my 1e stuff when I'm not at work.

Quote from: The Traveller;680930If you have a thief scouting you're almost guaranteed to alert anything ahead after repeated failures to move quietly.

Sometimes, sure.  Which is why you had the thief within retreat range to the rest of the party.  It was a dangerous game.  It wasn't WoW "I can just disappear and nothing will see me EVER!" type stealth.  And when it *worked* you could get good information.  And smart playing would remove the need for as many rolls as possible.  The dice were the last resort, not the first.

1st level was hard.  A lot of characters died.  Wasn't any easier on the thief than on the fighter that rolled crap HP.

Quote from: The Traveller;680930The only way a thief was going to detect traps before reaching higher levels was if you put a blindfold on the poor bastard and made him walk twenty feet ahead of the group.

And in old-school games, "finding traps" was a lot more about looking around and examining the environment than just rolling dice.

And I'll admit - from a more "modern" campaign style (these four players, playing these four characters), the thief is absolutely terribly balanced.  Horribly.  But early D&D, as a whole, doesn't really fit well with "modern" campaigns.  That's not what it was designed around.

Quote from: LordVreeg;680949b) I agreed to that.  I said so in the first place I agreed to a large degree, but you've just gone way too far down the continuum of thief suckitude.

Not even slightly. I'm not dredging up the details of a table I haven't looked at in decades but if you're interested do check out the expert rulebook thief class.

What exact game are you talking about then? I looked back and I'm not sure you have said. Just "thieves in D&D" as far as I can tell.

(oh. Basic/Expert?)

This argument has devolved into stupid absolutes, so let me backtrack to the original question of the thread: I think that game balance is good until it makes things boring. Also, I do think the AD&D thief is in fact a bit underpowered, and for example, the base 2e thief is an improvement because you can specialize your thief abilities, which makes you better at the sort of things you are going to try to do, provides a greater benefit to having two thieves in the party, and – in the service of "not making things boring," helps make individual characters more distinctive. So I do think it is possible to make beneficial changes along these lines.

Quote from: Imp;680953What exact game are you talking about then? I looked back and I'm not sure you have said. Just "thieves in D&D" as far as I can tell.

(oh. Basic/Expert?)

This argument has devolved into stupid absolutes, so let me backtrack to the original question of the thread: I think that game balance is good until it makes things boring. Also, I do think the AD&D thief is in fact a bit underpowered, and for example, the base 2e thief is an improvement because you can specialize your thief abilities, which makes you better at the sort of things you are going to try to do, provides a greater benefit to having two thieves in the party, and – in the service of "not making things boring," helps make individual characters more distinctive. So I do think it is possible to make beneficial changes along these lines.

The Talking Heads had a song about posts like this.  As they said, stop it.

Quote from: The Traveller;680947Aside from the fact that I'm not talking about AD&D, you can achieve the same effect by giving the magic to any other character. You changed things around to make the thief more effective in your game, good for you, that supports exactly what I'm saying so I've no idea what we're arguing about.

Thieves have better survivability than magic-users, and better movement/less encumbrance than fighters. A 6th level magic-user with boots of levitation still only has 17 HP. A fighter with an elven cloak is still slow and heavy. And thieves tend to be haflings, elves, and other races that have stealthy attributes and/or infravision. They have built-in qualities that make them superior scouts to other classes, gear aside.

Also Thief is frequently part of a multiclass set - Dwarf or Halfling Fighter/Thief, Elf or Half-Elf Fighter/Mage/Thief (or Mage/Thief), Gnome Illusionist/Thief, the semi-mythical Cleric/Thief (now that's a support character...).

In wich cases the Thief bit gives a bunch of skills in exchange for not using armor heavier than leather.

Quote from: The Traveller;680933You said nothing was guaranteed at a lower  level, I pointed out that a couple of spells had no saving throw.

Which isn't even remotely 'guaranteed success'.  But ok, let's do this.

Quote from: The Traveller;680896If it fails 90%+ of the time, it's not useful.

It doesn't fail 90%+.  The chance of success with Open Locks is 25% at first level, modified by race and Dexterity.  A Dwarven Thief with 18 Dex has a 50% chance of Opening Locks.  A far cry from 'useless'

QuoteExcept they were terrible at moving quietly too. If I recall correctly about the only thing they had any chance of doing was climbing walls, and hey, rope+grapnel. Plus they weren't really very good at even that.

You don't recall correctly.  Aside from the Dwarven Thief, a Half-Elf Thief with 18 Dex has a 50% chance of picking pockets.  A Halfling Thief with 18 Dex has a 35% chance of Moving Silently (not Quietly).  Like Elves, by virtue of being a Halfling, they can surprise monsters with a 1-4 on a d6.  Pretty good scouts, I would say.

Quote from: The Traveller;680933You  also said greater than 0% was not terrible odds. 0% isn't terrible odds,  it's no odds. To emphasise it a bit more, let's roll a d20. Every time a  1 comes up, I'll give you ten bucks. Every other time, you give me  twenty. Would you say those odds are terrible or otherwise?

No, that's wrong, too.  The correct analogy would be to roll a d20, and when it came up as a 19 or a 20, you would give me ten dollars.  You know, 10%.  On any other result, nothing happens.  Like when you roll to hit but are too low.  The opponent doesn't automatically do damage, you simply didn't succeed.  A lack of success is only a failure in a very, very narrow range of concepts.  Sure, that character failed to hit, but that doesn't make them a failure, nor does it render them useless.  That is the kind of thinking that has taken over modern games.

If you are going to focus on the niggling details and pick nits, you should probably make sure you have the details correct first.  One time in a thousand, you might be able to find that one critical thread that unravels the whole tapestry, but I wouldn't suggest it as a standard operating procedure.

Quote from: robiswrong;680951I only call it "paleo" to differentiate from "old-school", which is what a lot of people consider what they did when they were ten and picked up their Basic D&D box at the store.  You know, like I did before I got a chance to play in a "paleo" game.

Ahem.  "Vintage".  :)

Quote from: StormBringer;680977Ahem.  "Vintage".  :)

good call.

Quote from: StormBringer;680973It doesn't fail 90%+.  The chance of success with Open Locks is 25% at first level, modified by race and Dexterity.  A Dwarven Thief with 18 Dex has a 50% chance of Opening Locks.  A far cry from 'useless'

I just looked up Basic D&D, and in it, the base chance of a 1st level Thief (no race modifier, obviously) opening a lock is 15%, and it can't be retried.  There are no bonuses for stats listed, though Dex grant a to-hit bonus.

Of course, it's also worth noting, I think, that the thief will hit level 3 at 2400 XP, giving him a 25% open lock chance, which is before the Magic User hits second, way before the Elf hits second, and barely after everyone else.  This continues on through the levels, when the Thief hits 5, everyone else will be 4, except the Magic User who is almost ready to hit 4, and the Elf that's barely halfway to 4.

And that 15%-25% is still, uh, better than anyone else.  And since the presumption in those old games was never "you *will* make it past this", that's potentially a lot of extra treasure that you go home with.

There's also no racial (obviously) or dex adjustments to Thieving skills in B/X.  Again, I'll look up 1e when I get home, since I don't know how close OSRIC hews to 1e, and I've seen statements that suggest they've bumped the Thief slightly (and its insistence that you can retry a lock is directly counter to Basic).

... I would just like to point out that when you have to resort to: Well if they are the perfect race and have 18 dex, to support your argument, there might be something wrong.

Not saying you are wrong, saying that you're using flawed premises. Having 18 dex is RARE.

(Also he did specify Basic/Expert, so the Race Class combination thing and ability score modifiers is moot).

Quote from: Emperor Norton;680988... I would just like to point out that when you have to resort to: Well if they are the perfect race and have 18 dex, to support your argument, there might be something wrong.

Not saying you are wrong, saying that you're using flawed premises. Having 18 dex is RARE.

(Also he did specify Basic/Expert, so the Race Class combination thing is moot).

Yes, a flawed premise is not a good basis for supporting an argument.  You are absolutely correct.  ;)

Quote from: robiswrong;680985There's also no racial (obviously) or dex adjustments to Thieving skills in B/X.  Again, I'll look up 1e when I get home, since I don't know how close OSRIC hews to 1e, and I've seen statements that suggest they've bumped the Thief slightly (and its insistence that you can retry a lock is directly counter to Basic).

Stock 1st Edition is the same, no retries.  I like the suggestion someone linked to that the first try is to open in one round, the next is in one minute, and the successive attempts take a turn each.

The one attempt rule is an echo of the idea that the dungeon is working against the players*, so I can kind of dig it.  Not my go-to style, because I promise a locksmith doesn't shrug their shoulders and walk away if the first attempt does not open a lock.


*if anyone would be so kind as to remind me where I read that...

Quote from: Haffrung;680958Thieves have better survivability than magic-users, and better movement/less encumbrance than fighters. A 6th level magic-user with boots of levitation still only has 17 HP.

And, again, a 6th level MU will have earned enough XP for a thief to hit level 8 - so they'd have, on average, 20 hp compared to the MU's 15 at level 6.

Even the cleric would only have 24.5 with the same experience gain, making the thief (in terms of hp) not that much more fragile than the cleric, though they'd likely have less AC (even after dex adjustment)

The advancement rate difference is significant enough to mention, I think.  It's easy to get caught up in "level 5 thief vs. level 5 m-u", but that's a poor comparison.

Quote from: StormBringer;680990Stock 1st Edition is the same, no retries.  I like the suggestion someone linked to that the first try is to open in one round, the next is in one minute, and the successive attempts take a turn each.

It's not bad, but I'd rather avoid "balance via houserule".

Not surprised about the retry.  I don't mind the rule, because frankly I don't like the "I'll just try and try til I get it" philosophy, though the old D&D assumption of wandering monsters makes it *not free*.

I also think it's somewhat more reasonable than the "locksmith" scenario, because you're working under pressure, in poor light, and in a dangerous environment.

What were we talking about?  Oh, yeah, game balance...

There does need to be some balance provided by the rules, but only in those areas covered by the rules.  Magic-users should not be the mobile path of destruction the whin- errr...  the detractors claim they are.  Neither should the other classes get tweaks to provide a constant DPS equivalent to the burst damage from the wizard.

The decision to multi-class can't be adjudicated by the rules, but the results can be.  Which isn't to say multi-classing should be punished; if the multi-classing rules are properly integrated with the rest of the game, it will be an interesting choice instead of the 'right' choice.

The degree to which a game is balanced is the degree to which it provides a greater number of interesting choices than obvious choices.

Quote from: robiswrong;680992It's not bad, but I'd rather avoid "balance via houserule".

Sure, I don't have any quarrel with that idea in particular.  Obviously, I don't adhere to it.  :)

QuoteNot surprised about the retry.  I don't mind the rule, because frankly I don't like the "I'll just try and try til I get it" philosophy, though the old D&D assumption of wandering monsters makes it *not free*.

I can see why the rule is in place as well, from a couple of perspectives.  As you mention, if the odds are 20% with "unlimited" retries, the player may as well automatically Open Locks, and just roll a d6 for how many rounds it will take to open instead.

QuoteI also think it's somewhat more reasonable than the "locksmith" scenario, because you're working under pressure, in poor light, and in a dangerous environment.

I would be more inclined to present those as modifiers to the roll than limitations on the number of attempts.  I know what you are saying, there are valid reasons for the one attempt.  Just to be clear, I am not making an argument that you should stop using the one attempt rule, only that I understand why it's considered a bit wonky and not my preferred method.

Quote from: StormBringer;680996The degree to which a game is balanced is the degree to which it provides a greater number of interesting choices than obvious choices.

I think this is actually the key, especially if you look at it from a Game Theory (math, not GNS) viewpoint.

And a lot of the fun in older games is "making do with what you get", thus constraining you to a set of choices that may preclude the "obvious" best choice.

In a game where you can "design" your character, yeah, you don't want an obvious "win" button.  In games where GMs actively fudge at low levels (or just bypass them), early weakness is not a balance point for later power - that "can I survive" tradeoff just isn't there any more.

In a lot of cases, it's recognizing that factors that made these choices valid in certain scenarios in older games just don't come up the way the game is (generally) played today.

Quote from: StormBringer;681000Sure, I don't have any quarrel with that idea in particular.  Obviously, I don't adhere to it.  :)

I have no problem with houserules.  I just don't think that it's an interesting argument to say "this isn't a bad rule, because you can houserule it".  Because you can say that about any design, so it's not particularly useful.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't (or even that I wouldn't) houserule it.  It's just not a good defense for the design itself.

Quote from: StormBringer;680996I would be more inclined to present those as modifiers to the roll than limitations on the number of attempts.  I know what you are saying, there are valid reasons for the one attempt.  Just to be clear, I am not making an argument that you should stop using the one attempt rule, only that I understand why it's considered a bit wonky and not my preferred method.

I'd probably go the opposite way, actually, and add modifiers for working in a peaceful, safe, quiet environment with lots of time.  In general, I think that the default usage of a skill should reflect the "normal" circumstances in which it would be used.

And I don't really have a *problem* with multiple attempts, so long as there's some cost (hey, random monsters and supply consumption!) to it.  I'm just saying I can understand why it's there, and that I think it's better than "unlimited retries with no penalty".

I think the rule you suggested is pretty reasonable, all things considered.  I'd be tempted to use it as a houserule, actually.

Quote from: LordVreeg;680980good call.

:hatsoff:

Quote from: robiswrong;681013I think this is actually the key, especially if you look at it from a Game Theory (math, not GNS) viewpoint.

And a lot of the fun in older games is "making do with what you get", thus constraining you to a set of choices that may preclude the "obvious" best choice.

In a game where you can "design" your character, yeah, you don't want an obvious "win" button.  In games where GMs actively fudge at low levels (or just bypass them), early weakness is not a balance point for later power - that "can I survive" tradeoff just isn't there any more.

In a lot of cases, it's recognizing that factors that made these choices valid in certain scenarios in older games just don't come up the way the game is (generally) played today.

I think a little mathematical Game Theory would go a long way in RPG design.  The rest I completely agree with.

QuoteI have no problem with houserules.  I just don't think that it's an interesting argument to say "this isn't a bad rule, because you can houserule it".  Because you can say that about any design, so it's not particularly useful.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't (or even that I wouldn't) houserule it.  It's just not a good defense for the design itself.

Absolutely.  As a blanket fix, houserules are not the best solution.  "It's not broken if you can houserule it" is total bullshit, but that also requires the ability to determine if something is legitimately broken, or just not working for your group.  But houserules to tweak the game to taste are vital.

QuoteI'd probably go the opposite way, actually, and add modifiers for working in a peaceful, safe, quiet environment with lots of time.  In general, I think that the default usage of a skill should reflect the "normal" circumstances in which it would be used.

I can see that.  The baseline is wretched conditions, so having a well lit, safe environment would be much easier.

QuoteAnd I don't really have a *problem* with multiple attempts, so long as there's some cost (hey, random monsters and supply consumption!) to it.  I'm just saying I can understand why it's there, and that I think it's better than "unlimited retries with no penalty".

Complete agreement.  Retrying with consequences is far more interesting than no or unlimited retries.

QuoteI think the rule you suggested is pretty reasonable, all things considered.  I'd be tempted to use it as a houserule, actually.

I can't take credit for that one:  Thief skills, redux (http://thedragonsflagon.blogspot.com/2012/10/thief-skills-redux.html)

I thought it was an inspired bit of houseruling myself.

Id like a game to be balanced against the physics of the game world rather than the insecurities of the players.

Quote from: The Traveller;680939Why? It will work just as well on a magic user or fighter, and unlike a thief they aren't third wheels. You're talking about balancing out the character's abilities with magical items that could be used by anyone else. Surely you must see it's a better idea to start the thief out at a base 50% in most abilities, push it up by 10% per level, maxing out at 200% and adjusting for the difficulty of the task? Not to mention a whole variety of additional level related bonuses. That's how you'd balance on the thief, not by depending on the largesse of fellow players and the GM.


I'm mostly referring to the blue book expert set rulebook since that's where I had the most experience, but my point is that as a class the thief represented itself very poorly when compared to any other class. It's a textbook case of little to no thought being given to balance.

My favorite tweak is to make the percentages into saves for failure.  A trap that is missed, a lock that is like a movie safe (unpickable) and do forth.  Not perfect but it reinforces that anyone can scout or look for a trap.  A thief just gets a save when it goes sideways.

I think I do 'Move silently' and Hide in shadows' differently than some people.

I assume that a thief with those skills is effective even at level one at being quiet and hiding. The actual roll is to perform those skill 'flawlessly'

I don't make level 1 thieves stomp around screaming loudly just because they failed the low percentage roll.

Quote from: Bill;681150I think I do 'Move silently' and Hide in shadows' differently than some people.

I assume that a thief with those skills is effective even at level one at being quiet and hiding. The actual roll is to perform those skill 'flawlessly'

I don't make level 1 thieves stomp around screaming loudly just because they failed the low percentage roll.

That is the general interpretation, as far as I am aware.  Simply missing the roll means they didn't move silently; it doesn't mean they are automatically heard.  They are still moving very quietly, and will probably get the drop on anything ahead of them.  Similarly, if they botched the Hide in Shadows roll, they aren't suddenly glowing or the focus of everyone's attention.  They are probably still exceedingly difficult to see to the point they will likely go unnoticed anyway.  Hide in Shadows is probably more like Blend with Shadows, where it isn't pitch black, but the Thief is crunched back into a corner where the light is very dim.

Quote from: StormBringer;680973No, that's wrong, too.  The correct analogy would be to roll a d20, and when it came up as a 19 or a 20, you would give me ten dollars.  You know, 10%.  On any other result, nothing happens.

Again you're talking about a different system despite having my having specified which one I was referring to twice previously, but even then if you fail to climb walls does it happen ten feet up or fifty feet up? When you fail to move silently, does it happen when you're next to a nest of trolls?

Quote from: StormBringer;680973That is the kind of thinking that has taken over modern games.

The kind of thinking that has overtaken modern games is apparently 'lets play rapists'. Thankfully 'modern' games are and will forever remain a pimple on the flank of actual RPGs since nobody outside of a very few will actually buy them.

Anyway I hope everyone is clear on what I was trying to say at this point - balance in character creation options is usually a good thing, certainly to the extent that making a drastically weaker class for no apparent reason is a bad thing.

Quote from: Bill;681150I think I do 'Move silently' and Hide in shadows' differently than some people.

I assume that a thief with those skills is effective even at level one at being quiet and hiding. The actual roll is to perform those skill 'flawlessly'

I don't make level 1 thieves stomp around screaming loudly just because they failed the low percentage roll.

right.
And I always did and still do allow the amount of failure or success guide me, and then still need to see what the effect is.

So in Move silent or Hide, if they miss by one a bit they made a bit of noise, and a critical miss can be, well, comedic.  But then you need to check what and who is around to hear and see.

Quote from: TristramEvans;681131Id like a game to be balanced against the physics of the game world rather than the insecurities of the players.

And see, I have always interpreted the emotional state at the table as equivalent to these forces.  It it wouldn't be fun for that lock to be locked, then it never was.  It isn't as if I have a hard time imagining an unlocked door.

Quote from: mcbobbo;681241And see, I have always interpreted the emotional state at the table as equivalent to these forces.  It it wouldn't be fun for that lock to be locked, then it never was.  It isn't as if I have a hard time imagining an unlocked door.

Its more fun to let the players imagine a way to get past a door. Eliminating obstacles just because the players fail to overcome them with a single approach and their feelings are hurt is a type of illusionism coddling I won't do and it would bore the hell out of me as a player.

Many, many times as a dm I have had a locked door, chest, portal, etc...that pc's failed to open.

Never seemed a real problem. In most cases the players eventually found a way to open it.

I would never place a locked door and then automatically let it be opened no matter what.

Likewise, a bank vault is not going to suddenly open just because a pc is standing there.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;681248Its more fun to let the players imagine a way to get past a door. Eliminating obstacles just because the players fail to overcome them with a single approach and their feelings are hurt is a type of illusionism coddling I won't do and it would bore the hell out of me as a player.

Like I said, 'more fun' is the goal.  If I thought you were enjoying unlocking them, I would lock more of them.  I try hard to read my table and adapt things to fit.

I bet some of you already do this with other things, too.  Like number of opponents,  maybe? Say you get a sense that people are tired of combat tonight, so you trim the number of kobolds?

Quote from: mcbobbo;681270Like I said, 'more fun' is the goal.  If I thought you were enjoying unlocking them, I would lock more of them.  I try hard to read my table and adapt things to fit.

I bet some of you already do this with other things, too.  Like number of opponents,  maybe? Say you get a sense that people are tired of combat tonight, so you trim the number of kobolds?

If players get tired of combat there are options. Chief among them is doing something other than fighting. The situation you describe would only happen if the DM had already decided that the PC's WILL fight these kobolds.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;681272If players get tired of combat there are options. Chief among them is doing something other than fighting. The situation you describe would only happen if the DM had already decided that the PC's WILL fight these kobolds.

Picture a scenario where the party is seeking a McGuffin in a dungeon.  They have a habit of exploring every room.  In the scenario design (whether your own notes or a module) you put ten kobolds in a room.  Players being players they didn't happen to go into that room until after they took out the BBEG and retrieved the McGuffin.   Now they happen across that same room, obviously hoping it doesn't result in another thirty minute combat.

In that situation, I change the content of that room. I will deliberately use different styles to do so, because it seems more realistic to me.  So fewer is a choice.  Or maybe they all fled and the room is now empty.  That sort of thing.

Quote from: mcbobbo;681274Picture a scenario where the party is seeking a McGuffin in a dungeon.  They have a habit of exploring every room.  In the scenario design (whether your own notes or a module) you put ten kobolds in a room.  Players being players they didn't happen to go into that room until after they took out the BBEG and retrieved the McGuffin.   Now they happen across that same room, obviously hoping it doesn't result in another thirty minute combat.

In that situation, I change the content of that room. I will deliberately use different styles to do so, because it seems more realistic to me.  So fewer is a choice.  Or maybe they all fled and the room is now empty.  That sort of thing.

As presented, why would that have to result in a 30 minute combat?

Does the adventure state that the kobolds will attack anything on sight like rabid dogs? Do these kobolds not have a language?

Perhaps announcing " clear out, your boss is dead" while tossing the BBEG's head into the room might cause them to flee?

I think treating the kobolds as automatic combat challenge of CR X is the issue here.

Sure that's an issue.  Maybe 'the' issue, maybe not.  In Savage Worlds,  for example, ten mobs is no big deal.  In 3e, you get your thirty minutes.  Conversely, 3e would require/expect the XP from that room be earned, with SW not caring one way or the other.

And yeah, sometimes every problem looks like a nail.  Roger that.

Still, flexible is good.  IME anyway.

Quote from: The Traveller;681179The kind of thinking that has overtaken modern games is apparently 'lets play rapists'. Thankfully 'modern' games are and will forever remain a pimple on the flank of actual RPGs since nobody outside of a very few will actually buy them.

Please.  It was clear what I meant by "modern" games - the style of play that begin in the freakin' 80s where the assumption is you have the same small group of players, and they'll each have one character, and they'll go through the adventure that's set up.

Quote from: mcbobbo;681274Picture a scenario where the party is seeking a McGuffin in a dungeon.  They have a habit of exploring every room.  In the scenario design (whether your own notes or a module) you put ten kobolds in a room.  Players being players they didn't happen to go into that room until after they took out the BBEG and retrieved the McGuffin.   Now they happen across that same room, obviously hoping it doesn't result in another thirty minute combat.

Well, the question is what the game is about, ain't it?  Early D&D was really survival horror - it wasn't just about "can I beat up the bad guys" as much as "can I get in, quickly grab what I can, and get out before I get eaten or run out of supplies?"

Getting out, in that style of play, is just as relevant as getting in.

While it can be just as relevant, it doesn't HAVE to be.

I probably would never be able to even count the number of handwaives I have done for this sort of thing.  "Your journey back is uneventful,  but as soon as you arrive in town..."

Me, if I was a player?  I'd clearly show the kobolds that their boss is dead, and welcome the new boss (me).  Their new job, in the interim, is to clean up the lair and keep it occupied until I can get back with a proper re-habitation and takeover of it.  And I'd sweeten the deal by proving I wasn't as bad as the old boss because I'd actually give them freedom and power as long as they followed certain rules.  For example, no murdering or waylaying of travellers, or they'd end up worse than their boss.  Even an evil creature like a kobold can stop acting evil if under enough of a threat or if bribed well enough.

So I guess what I'm getting at is that I'd prefer a game world where everything in it reacts to the actions in the game world, and individuals or groups of people just don't disappear because the PCs want to get to the next murder hobo dungeon.  IMO, there is a lot of role-playing opportunities to be lost there by doing that.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;681312So I guess what I'm getting at is that I'd prefer a game world where everything in it reacts to the actions in the game world, and individuals or groups of people just don't disappear because the PCs want to get to the next murder hobo dungeon.  IMO, there is a lot of role-playing opportunities to be lost there by doing that.

I find the duality where things can spring into existence but cannot likewise cease to exist hard to understand. As far as the PCs know, the room always was as they find it.

Quote from: mcbobbo;681311While it can be just as relevant, it doesn't HAVE to be.

I probably would never be able to even count the number of handwaives I have done for this sort of thing.  "Your journey back is uneventful,  but as soon as you arrive in town..."

Again, "for that style of play".  If it's less survival-horror, and more adventure, and the real point is going and beating up the bad guy, then hand-waving makes total sense, and *not* hand-waving the return trip is probably an error.

For more hardcore old-school, "survival horror" type play?  I think the return trip is pretty much always relevant.

A good indicator is probably "are you using random wandering encounters?"  If the answer is "no", and especially if it's "no, because they're not really important to what's happening", then hand-waving the return trip is the right call.

Quote from: mcbobbo;681313I find the duality where things can spring into existence but cannot likewise cease to exist hard to understand. As far as the PCs know, the room always was as they find it.

Why does this sound a lot like I'm being told to " endeavor to persevere"? :rotfl:

Quote from: Exploderwizard;681321Why does this sound a lot like I'm being told to " endeavor to persevere"? :rotfl:

That's from a clint eastwood movie, isn't it?

Quote from: Bill;681661That's from a clint eastwood movie, isn't it?

Yes. It was a quote by Chief Dan George in The Outlaw Josey Wales.

Guess I need to add that to my "watch as an adult" list.

Obviously some level of basic balance is required in a game, so you can't just say "ignore balance completely", but there's the "balance" of being able to create broadly-playable groups, and the "balance" of insisting that every class be exactly equally weighted in every possible respect.  Those are two very different things.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;682249Obviously some level of basic balance is required in a game, so you can't just say "ignore balance completely", but there's the "balance" of being able to create broadly-playable groups, and the "balance" of insisting that every class be exactly equally weighted in every possible respect.  Those are two very different things.

RPGPundit

Essentially the difference between what the majority want from D&D and what 4vengers want.

Quote from: RPGPundit;682249Obviously some level of basic balance is required in a game, so you can't just say "ignore balance completely", but there's the "balance" of being able to create broadly-playable groups, and the "balance" of insisting that every class be exactly equally weighted in every possible respect.  Those are two very different things.

Yeah I'd view the latter as actively counterproductive - you may as well just have one class and leave it at that if all classes are meant to be equal. Actually that's kind of what classless point buy systems already do, 4e's mistake appears to have been trying to mimic that while still retaining discrete classes.

Y'know, I just ran my Dark Sun 5e game. The heroes decided they were going to set a trap for a travelling general from South Leopedus. They knew that he was travelling with a 'very small' contingent, and would arrive at Fort Glamis sometime the next day. So they go out and prepare the ambush.
 It's a thing of beauty: The characters are all set up, and they wait. And wait. And five hours later, the sole wagon trundles by. With no small amount of trepidation, they launch their assault. It opens with the ranger casting spike growth. Then the paladin casts Darkness. Then the fighter rolls a boulder into the wagon.

And then three vampires leap out of the wagon. There is one magical weapon between the four of them. 5e vampires are back to being immune to nonmagical weapons.

They end up using their scroll of protection from undead. They learn that fire hurts them, and the Paladin's divine damage is the only thing really taking chunks of them out. So they have this system of constantly moving outside the protection from undead spell, attacking, and moving back in, hoping their saves hold out from the relentless Dominate attempts.

In the end, the combat monster fighter was only able to drop 1d4 damage thanks to his flaming sword. The Monk made judicious use of his Fire path, acting as the 'tank' and taking fire. The Ranger held the vampires at bay with the spells he had.

But the hero of the day was Mimi Appletoad, the Assassin from Kankbottom. The little ancestor-worshiping halfling paladin killed the master vampire and the two brides.

That's the kind of balance most people want: people are okay with being the odd man out from time to time if they get a chance to shine when it matters most. Not to get all Swine-y on you, but when a player picks their class, they're telling you what matters most to them.

Quote from: RPGPundit;682249Obviously some level of basic balance is required in a game, so you can't just say "ignore balance completely", but there's the "balance" of being able to create broadly-playable groups, and the "balance" of insisting that every class be exactly equally weighted in every possible respect.  Those are two very different things.

RPGPundit

My favorite example is Batman and Superman, as opposed to Superman and Jimmie Olson.  In the Batman case, the Batman character gets to do interesting things and has an impact as a empowered actor in the story.  

Nobody cares that Superman is stronger, and in fact his strength can weaken him.  He has to be far more careful whereas Batman can push a lot of limits.  And being the smart guy who figures stuff out isn't a boring role either.

Quote from: RPGPundit;682249Obviously some level of basic balance is required in a game, so you can't just say "ignore balance completely", but there's the "balance" of being able to create broadly-playable groups, and the "balance" of insisting that every class be exactly equally weighted in every possible respect.  Those are two very different things.

Who exactly is arguing for the second one?

Quote from: StormBringer;680996The degree to which a game is balanced is the degree to which it provides a greater number of interesting choices than obvious choices.

That's a pretty useful statement. Different people may place emphasis on different axis or means of balance, but that sums up well the basic function.

Quote from: soviet;682615Who exactly is arguing for the second one?

Currently it's the majority opinion on rpgnet - or at least the one enforced by the mods. Also characteristic of people I've encountered from The Gaming Den.

Quote from: StormBringer;681000I know what you are saying, there are valid reasons for the one attempt.

Chiefly, that "Plan A: Just Because I'm a Type X Figure (and I Got a Lucky Roll)" gets BORING pretty quickly. There's little or no live choice or creative thinking involved. It's more interesting to move on to Plan B (which can also get dull if it gets too stereotyped).

Many people find the same in simple "hit, miss, miss, hit" combat. Some sort of maneuver, use of terrain, or other tactics becomes necessary to sustain interest.

Quote from: mcbobbo;681241And see, I have always interpreted the emotional state at the table as equivalent to these forces.  It it wouldn't be fun for that lock to be locked, then it never was.  It isn't as if I have a hard time imagining an unlocked door.

Some considerations that may vary from one group to another:

1) Fun for whom? There was some advice in Legend of the Five Rings (and similar text elsewhere) that boiled down to "for the GM," since the example was of thoroughly smacking down something a player was finding great fun. That might or might not find agreement from a given player.

2) Is it this or that particular thing (e.g., a door) that is the more important contributor to game fun content, or is it instead a wider process? For some common definitions both of "role playing" and of "game playing," certain attitudes toward the particular are counter-productive of the more important general.

Quote from: mcbobbo;681270Like I said, 'more fun' is the goal.  If I thought you were enjoying unlocking them, I would lock more of them.  I try hard to read my table and adapt things to fit.

I bet some of you already do this with other things, too.  Like number of opponents,  maybe? Say you get a sense that people are tired of combat tonight, so you trim the number of kobolds?

You clearly have adapted to players who prefer a more GM-driven game (which I have been attempting to do in recent years). In a more player-driven game, the answer to being tired of X (unlocking locks, fighting kobolds, whatever) is to choose a different course of action.

It can be pretty difficult for players long 'trained' to GM-driven habits to shift gears to taking responsibility for their own use of time. Going the other way, the difficulty seems to rest more on GMs who find it hard to moderate a game that takes a course they did not anticipate.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;681312So I guess what I'm getting at is that I'd prefer a game world where everything in it reacts to the actions in the game world, and individuals or groups of people just don't disappear because the PCs want to get to the next murder hobo dungeon.  IMO, there is a lot of role-playing opportunities to be lost there by doing that.

This factor of wide-ranging exploration or simulation is for many of us (especially old-timers) a key part of the appeal of paper & pencil RPGs, and a relative deficiency in computer games so far. It's the big departure from the field of wargames from which D&D, etc., branched off: the radical opening up of the scenario, of the domain of possible moves and strategies.

Quote from: mcbobbo;681313I find the duality where things can spring into existence but cannot likewise cease to exist hard to understand. As far as the PCs know, the room always was as they find it.

As far as the players know, they are not really free to explore, their apparent choices are false choices, because you are playing a rigged "shell game" on them.

Quote from: Votan;682555My favorite example is Batman and Superman, as opposed to Superman and Jimmie Olson.  In the Batman case, the Batman character gets to do interesting things and has an impact as a empowered actor in the story.  

Nobody cares that Superman is stronger, and in fact his strength can weaken him.  He has to be far more careful whereas Batman can push a lot of limits.  And being the smart guy who figures stuff out isn't a boring role either.

Perhaps curiously, I have found usual concepts of character balance not very important in superhero games. This has to do with the way things work in comicbooks, and the degree to which a game emulates that source material.