Quote from: pspahnIf it's a case of the GM giving his girlfriend's characters wish rings and pet dragons, no, it's not fair.
Pete

I *did* give my girlfriend a pet dragon, but it was a Psuedodragon bought with an Improved Familiar Feat she got at 6th level.

I'm all about being fair. Which means, in actual practice, giving people the same start at char gen and after that, keeping tabs on the situation and making rulings on the rules in good faith.

Balance is different, but most things work out in the wash.

What do you do when balance goes awry?

For example in my Earthdawn game I designed a set of magical items for the group, each tailored for a specific character-but when they discovered these items, and divvied them up they ended up handing them out to all the wrong people.

The end result was that the Archer-Thief ended up massively over powered, and equipped with too much junk. What do you do when the players facilitate this sort of thing?

Quote from: RPGPunditWell, how important is it, in your RPG games? Do all the characters have to be "Balanced"? Do you need to have a situation where one player shouldn't end up getting more in-game fame, fortune, or power than the rest?

If one of your players ends up just catching a "lucky break", do the others have to as well?

What is fairness in the context of playing RPGs, and just how much of it do you think is needed?

RPGPundit

1. I think the GM should be impartial toward the players (e.g. the GM shouldn't give all the good treasure to his girlfriend)
2. I think the rules should allow a wide variety of character builds to be effective (being good at different things is one way to accomplish this); also: there shouldn't one build that's best at everything -- this is more about supporting interesting diversity of characters rather than strict 'fairness'
3. In general treasure (for games where this is important) should be in some way divisible under most circumstances (there shouldn't only be one magic sword) so everyone gets some... this isn't a hard-fast rule, but it's a good leading-practice for fantasy type games
4. Everyone should have something to do: if the GM never plans to put traps in his dungeon he should let the Thief player know before play starts. This is an ideal -- and not aways a goal that can be met, but the GM should keep this kind of balance / fairness in mind when designing scenarios.

Is this the kind of fairness you were thinking about?
Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: SettembriniFairness =! Balance

Exactly. Why muddy the waters like that?

The game should provide opportunities for people to have fun.

Some (in fact, many) people have fun by having their character make an important impact on events.

A system which trends toward some players not being able to make any important impact on events?  Sounds sketchy.  People might have fun, but one of the major elements encouraging that has been kicked over.

Bad example:  Join up in several Vampire LARPs I've seen, and you'll get told (in subtle and not-so-subtle ways) that until you've been playing for at least six months you won't be sufficiently "known" to have any impact on the social or political situation.  I'm sure that your Vampire LARP, and all good Vampire LARPs don't do that, but some do.

Good example:  Play a grog in Ars Magica and, despite the fact that the mages have way more raw power, your crucial role keeping them shielded from mundane menaces still means that your character has many opportunities to made their mark.


Now that same equation goes all pear-shaped if people want something else.  For instance, if folks don't mind hanging around in character without anything important to do then the lack of impact in a Vamp-LARP is a non-issue for them ... they get their fun from what the game provides them.

Similarly, if folks want to be THE hero who saves the day then playing an Ars Magica grog is going to be very unpleasant to them.


Both character-balance and niche-protection seem, to me, to be ways to try to assure people's ability to make an impact on the game, in the hopes that that will lead them to have fun.  That's ... as important as it is.  If the impact is important to your group than assuring it is important to your game.  If it isn't, it isn't.

"Fair?"

Players should have a shot at surviving anything if they know how to fight and when to flee.

That said, there's stuff you can't kill just yet (hence the "when to flee").

Players with different assets and roles in the party should have different chances to shine (as opposed to combat mages, combat rogues, and combat fighters... something that admittedly didn't bug me as a player but did as a GM).

Players with similar assets should be roughly on par in that respect.

People who are willing to take bigger risks or work harder at it should get more out of the game.

My opinion; yours may vary.

I don't want to be impartial to the players, or their characters. I want to root for them, cheer them on, but also make their characters lives miserable. NOT the players lives. This is a game after all.

I think we identified two forms of fairness:  social fairness and mechanical fairness.  Of course, social fairness can be broken down into GM vs. player and player vs. player.   It look likes most of us avoid trying to be partial when they are the GM, DM, narrator, etc.  I suppose part of trying to be impartial and socially fair is to give everyone a chance to shine.

I assume player to player would be to follow expectations and to be polite.  I mean, one person can be disruptive (not following the group, trying to screw someone over when the game isn't competitive (for instance,  "I'm pissed at John and so I am killing his character" player complex, etc).

Mechanically fair...the system should support the GM and players in being impartial and in giving a variety of options.  To go much further would be to include balance and other issues not directly related to fairness.

I think "fairness" applies far more socially than mechanically.  I would use the term balance for mechanics..a distant cousin to fairness.

Quote from: RPGPunditWell, how important is it, in your RPG games? Do all the characters have to be "Balanced"?

No, but I don't want any one character building approach to be far superior to all others in every way.  Rather, I like a more rock-paper-scissors approach where each area of strength is important in different situations.

QuoteDo you need to have a situation where one player shouldn't end up getting more in-game fame, fortune, or power than the rest?

People that play well or get lucky deserve whatever rewards they get.  I do strive very hard to make each adventure and, to the extent I can, each encounter have multiple viable avenues of approach.  Social interactions, Knowledge skills, and Intelligence gathering are all as important as raw combat ability.

On playing to character abilities and builds, I do try to think ahead to the unique or out of the box things characters could do with their abilities in an encounter to better prepare, and may even suggest options  their character would know but the player may not (or have forgotten in the bustle of job and family).  I also again try to take into consideration the externalities of the encounter and the full three dimensional environment so that there are other approaches than stand and swing should the players wish.

I will even design encounters and adventurers knowing the PCs have ability x, which may enable them to enter where no others could.  It gives them a chance to use this ability and explains how they are able to go where none (or few) have gone before.

QuoteIf one of your players ends up just catching a "lucky break", do the others have to as well?

Nope, never. Likewise with bad luck.

QuoteWhat is fairness in the context of playing RPGs, and just how much of it do you think is needed?

I think it has been said before well. I believe in fairness of process, not result.  Luck is a part, but people can make their own luck by good planning.
As to fairness in process, no one gets plot protection in my games (not that my games depend on "plot" for fun, even if there is an initial one).  PCs don't get it and NPCs don't.  The BBEG may make some bad rolls and die in the first encounter, I'll just have to adjust as GM.    I actually love it when the PCs do something unusual that ends up making all my predictions of what NPCs are likely to do next to meaningless.