In terms of system design, I found it very useful to establish a ruthless balance in class design initially.

That made it a lot easier to then introduce imbalances into the system where the effects of each imbalance on how it plays are better understood.

For example, magic in the system uses a "build-up" system where the caster gathers energy to cast their spells.

One of the three casting classes uses the baseline of building X points a turn by taking actions.

The second class makes a check each turn to see how much power they draw... from 0 to 2X points each turn. The average is still 1X like the first class, but the dice will give it ebbs and flows where sometimes they can barely cast anything and others it has phenomenal power available.

The third class gets all its power, typically about 6X, front loaded during a rest and pre-spends their power into each of their magic devices, but gains no power outside of that. 6X is actually more than the "steady state" caster will build up in a typical encounter, but if they charge the wrong devices or reinforcements turn up they have no way to build more power to keep up their casting.

In play they all feel different and have different strengths (how they build up power is just one difference) and weaknesses that make them better or worse for different scenarios.

But because each of their imbalances was considered in relation to a balanced baseline none are so superior to the others as to render other classes worthless in comparison.

Quote from: Zelen on February 23, 2025, 10:06:06 AMWhite-room concerns about spellcasters often come from the perspective that:

1. The game system perpetually adds more spells (due to publishing-creep)
2. The PCs have virtually unlimited access to more spells
3. The PCs have all the spells at any given point and no other limitations (material components, time to prepare, relationship with Deity, etc)

When you're only playing with ~25% of the game rules (selectively chosen) then it's understandable when the game seems a bit off-kilter.

With AD&D 1E, everyone played with selectively chosen rules. Some parts especially -- like Grappling/Overbearing, Weapon-vs-Armor mods, and psionics -- were routinely ignored. Further, many people argued that the DM was supposed to use those rules as suggestions rather than trying to follow 100% of the rules as written.

I don't think these complaints were at all "white room". I've heard them lots of times from people who actually played AD&D.

Quote from: Brad on February 21, 2025, 11:44:58 AMIf I'm playing Conan, why the fuck do I care if the wizard gets into a spell slinging battle with an enemy sorcerer? That's his job and why he gets a share of the loot, even if I'm doing all the literal heavy lifting 99% of the time.

Trying to "balance" characters for every possible situation is retarded and boring and lame.

Why would I want my friend to sit around doing nothing during a game they were invited to participate in that occupies their valuable free time? That sounds pretty boring and lame. If my friend is Conan, I certainly want him sneaking around the flank to stab the sorcerer or ruin his ritual while I'm engaging him with magic. Teamwork is fun, and makes the game better.

A session where everyone gets to participate is better than one where that isn't the case. An encounter where everyone gets to participate is better than one where that isn't the case.

A game system doesn't have to sacrifice fun for balance. They're orthogonal.

4e sucked ass. Fortunately, there are lots of good games that aren't 4e or D&D.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 03:19:29 AMA session where everyone gets to participate is better than one where that isn't the case. An encounter where everyone gets to participate is better than one where that isn't the case.

Except that's clearly not true at all. I can think of plenty of examples where a singular character doing something is better than trying to shoehorn reasons for an entire group of PCs to engage. You're literally going to break verisimilitude by trying to have a thief get involved in some ritual that the cleric should rightfully do solo. I'm not saying this is true ALL the time, but if you're going to use a blanket "better" you have to allow for cases where it's not.

Quote from: Brad on February 24, 2025, 07:59:06 AM

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 03:19:29 AMA session where everyone gets to participate is better than one where that isn't the case. An encounter where everyone gets to participate is better than one where that isn't the case.

Except that's clearly not true at all. I can think of plenty of examples where a singular character doing something is better than trying to shoehorn reasons for an entire group of PCs to engage. You're literally going to break verisimilitude by trying to have a thief get involved in some ritual that the cleric should rightfully do solo. I'm not saying this is true ALL the time, but if you're going to use a blanket "better" you have to allow for cases where it's not.

I think their argument is that, "if the cleric's solo ritual consumes an entire weekly session, it sucks for everyone else but the cleric who could have saved gas and pizza money for all they matter to the session."

I've got no problem with the cleric solo-casting the ritual or how long it takes in in-game time, if it only sidelines the other PLAYERS for 5-10 minutes. If it's long enough they could grab dinner somewhere and be back before their characters can do anything, that's what I'd call a problem.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 24, 2025, 08:25:12 AMI think their argument is that, "if the cleric's solo ritual consumes an entire weekly session, it sucks for everyone else but the cleric who could have saved gas and pizza money for all they matter to the session."

I've got no problem with the cleric solo-casting the ritual or how long it takes in in-game time, if it only sidelines the other PLAYERS for 5-10 minutes. If it's long enough they could grab dinner somewhere and be back before their characters can do anything, that's what I'd call a problem.

Fair enough, but if you're playing a real RPG, there will be times this sort of stuff happens and makes perfect sense in-game. MY point is that if it naturally occurs, trying to come up with dumb reasons to include other PCs makes the game meaningless. Now, an entire session, yeah, that's horseshit if you exclude everyone, but doing things in-game isn't the only way to participate.

Quote from: Brad on February 24, 2025, 07:59:06 AM

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 03:19:29 AMA session where everyone gets to participate is better than one where that isn't the case. An encounter where everyone gets to participate is better than one where that isn't the case.

Except that's clearly not true at all. I can think of plenty of examples where a singular character doing something is better than trying to shoehorn reasons for an entire group of PCs to engage. You're literally going to break verisimilitude by trying to have a thief get involved in some ritual that the cleric should rightfully do solo. I'm not saying this is true ALL the time, but if you're going to use a blanket "better" you have to allow for cases where it's not.

No, he shouldn't rightfully do it solo. Asserted without evidence, dismissed without argument.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 04:17:07 PMNo, he shouldn't rightfully do it solo. Asserted without evidence, dismissed without argument.

Yes he should. Asserted without evidence, dismissed without argument.

Did I do it right?

EDIT: Nevermind, just a troll. I fell for it...sorry, guys.

Quote from: Brad on February 24, 2025, 04:19:27 PM

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 04:17:07 PMNo, he shouldn't rightfully do it solo. Asserted without evidence, dismissed without argument.

Yes he should. Asserted without evidence, dismissed without argument.

Did I do it right?

EDIT: Nevermind, just a troll. I fell for it...sorry, guys.

No, I'm not trolling. I explained earlier in the thread why the cleric might want assistance. You haven't explained why he wouldn't.

So, why should he do it solo? What is your reasoning?

Quote from: RPGPundit on February 18, 2025, 08:30:34 PMWhether as a DM or a game designer, you get told by "experts" that "game balance" is important. That's wrong; balance will almost always make for a worse experience.
...

A rare disagree here.

What is wrong is the tolerance for bad game design. There is a lot of bad game design. To the point that games like WHFRP 4e ship with known mechanical issues on release. Same with CPRed.

But in RPG land, RPG's can exists on a lot of sizzle, relying on the GM to smooth over the mechanical rough patches on the system steak.


Game balance, is Good.

If an essentially one man shop like Alexander Macris can make a balanced game like ACKSII; there is simply no excuse for anyone else.

Game balance is demonstrably achievable.

Game designers that are not up to the task are the ones to be held at fault.

Quote from: Brad on February 24, 2025, 04:19:27 PM

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 04:17:07 PMNo, he shouldn't rightfully do it solo. Asserted without evidence, dismissed without argument.

Yes he should. Asserted without evidence, dismissed without argument.

Did I do it right?

EDIT: Nevermind, just a troll. I fell for it...sorry, guys.

Greetings!

Reminds me of Domina in posting style. Snarky, acidic, slightly confrontational. Not serious in discussion or thought at the end of the day.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 04:37:08 PMNo, I'm not trolling. I explained earlier in the thread why the cleric might want assistance. You haven't explained why he wouldn't.

So, why should he do it solo? What is your reasoning?

You are trolling, whatever. To directly answer your question, in my long experience playing RPGs, there are few incidents that come up where a single PC gets to shine and show off. It is literally part of heroic fiction that sometimes the lone hero succeeds where everyone else fails, and if you actually play with friends who are invested in the game, they will understand that if one of those circumstances arises, they gotta let you shoot your shot. FOR INSTANCE, D&D 3rd edition game, I have a Bard with an astronomical number of languages and Use Magic Device. The DM put us in a situation (underdark, myconids, weird fucked up magical altar thing) where my character was literally the only one who could save our asses, so I got about 20-30 minutes to literally do just that. We had been playing this campaign for a while so not one player cared that they were sidelined for a bit while I got to take center stage. I will admit if it had been the entire session that might have been annoying, but then again, if it was the culmination of several years of gaming, we were all invested and it would make sense. I never had an issue with a player getting to basically do solo stuff for a while, within reason, if it made sense in-game. Sometimes it's fine to check out for a bit and get some Scotch and order a pizza while a singular PC is the focus. Sometimes their actions will dictate the entirety of the campaign, so you watch intently. Either way, the idea that every single fucking encounter and session has to be shared in reasonable amounts with all PCs is retarded as fuck, and THAT idea comes from a complete lack of actually playing RPGs at any reasonable level. You are asking the impossible for the GM to ensure all characters have shit to do all all times; that doesn't even make any sense. This is like getting mad that Scotty got to dominate an episode because Spock was laid up and no one else knew enough about the warp engines to be anything more than supporting cast.

Quote from: jhkim on February 23, 2025, 01:59:14 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on February 22, 2025, 08:58:47 AMMin-maxing is a separate issue from balance, though sometimes they are related.

Yeah. I think there's some mixing up of what happens in game design versus what happens at the table by the GM. A game designer makes some roughly balanced choices at the macro level, and as a result, there are some micro-level more or less popular choices. Just because everyone doesn't take the top option doesn't mean that some basic balancing shouldn't be considered.

Some posts cited AD&D as an example, but Gygax was outspoken in favor of game balance as a principle - which makes sense coming from wargaming. From Dragon #16 (1978):

Quote from: Gary GygaxWhy can't magic-users employ swords? And for that matter, why not allow fighters to use wands and similar magical devices? On the surface this seems a small concession, but in actuality it would spoil the game! Each character role has been designed with care in order to provide varied and unique approaches to solving the problems which confront the players. If characters are not kept distinct, they will soon merge into one super-character. Not only would this destroy the variety of the game, but it would also kill the game, for the super-character would soon have nothing left to challenge him or her, and the players would grow bored and move on to something which was fun. This same reasoning precludes many of the proposed character classes which enthusiasts wish to add to D&D. Usually such classes are either an unnecessary variation on an existing class, are to obtuse to be interesting, or are endowed with sufficient prowess to assure that they would rule the campaign for whomever chose to play as such (most certainly their authors). Similarly, multi-classed character types such as elves and dwarves are limited in most class progressions in order to assure game balance. That this can be justified by game logic, pointing out that humankind triumphs and rules other life forms in most if not all myths and mythos is a pleasant superfluity.

Later in that same issue, James Ward said this:

Quote from: James M. WardGame Balance, GAME balance, GAME BALANCE! I have heard this term loudly proclaimed by Gary Gygax, Rob Kuntz, and even a time or two by the very excellent editor of this magazine, Tim Kask.

(That article is about game balance in dungeon design rather than character generation, but from Gygax's own words, he thought it was important in both.)

Most of the wargames I like are not actually balanced, because they reflect historical battles.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 03:19:29 AM

Quote from: Brad on February 21, 2025, 11:44:58 AMIf I'm playing Conan, why the fuck do I care if the wizard gets into a spell slinging battle with an enemy sorcerer? That's his job and why he gets a share of the loot, even if I'm doing all the literal heavy lifting 99% of the time.

Trying to "balance" characters for every possible situation is retarded and boring and lame.

Why would I want my friend to sit around doing nothing during a game they were invited to participate in that occupies their valuable free time? That sounds pretty boring and lame. If my friend is Conan, I certainly want him sneaking around the flank to stab the sorcerer or ruin his ritual while I'm engaging him with magic. Teamwork is fun, and makes the game better.

A session where everyone gets to participate is better than one where that isn't the case. An encounter where everyone gets to participate is better than one where that isn't the case.

A game system doesn't have to sacrifice fun for balance. They're orthogonal.

4e sucked ass. Fortunately, there are lots of good games that aren't 4e or D&D.

As I addressed in the video, no one's time is actually wasted. In a "non-balanced" game, where some characters are a lot better at doing certain things than other characters, it means that in different situations different characters have opportunities to shine.

Rifts. It has zero "balance" in class construction, rules consistency*, or narrative balance of the setting.

Yet, it's been actively played, and is still going strong for decades. I'd suspect its more popular now than ever.

Now I'm sure there are those here that don't like Rifts for whatever reason, but saying it's "imbalanced" shouldn't be one of them. It's a feature not a flaw. But I would ask, if balance is that important, how do we even explain the existence of Rifts?

I will say that without a GM that has a strong hand, Rifts can get out of control. But this is kind of my point upthread. "Balance" is an illusion. But it's something that has to be curated by the GM in expressing the setting as they want it, not by the rules alone.


*Rifts rules have morphed over time via many splatbooks, and simply by dint of age of the system without many revisions.