Well, 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
Fairness =! Balance
I am for meta-fairness. I consider it a failure on my part to have to break the rules to save someone or have an event resolve the way I would prefer when I am DM. I don't carry too much about comparative in-game wealth, power, etc.
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
I think it's important for all characters to be balanced at the start of the game. Past that:
If the player makes good in-game choices, he should be rewarded.
If the player gets a lucky break because of a die roll, that's fine as long as other players get similar rolls at some point (that can succeed or fail).
If it's a case of the GM giving his girlfriend's characters wish rings and pet dragons, no, it's not fair.
IMO, fairness in an RPG means everyone gets an equal chance to showcase their character's abilities. Whether it's through specialized skill use, combat ability, magic, or social influence, each character should get a chance to shine at some point during the game.
Pete
Life isn't always fair, so my game world usually isn't either. I'm not a stickler for character balance. If everyone wants to make their characters at roughly the same power level during creation, that's fine by me, but I'm not going to try to balance them out by giving someone this or taking away that from someone else to try to even things up. I prefer to just let the chips fall where they may once the game begins.
The only type of fairness I do try to keep an eye on is giving everyone an even shot at "the spotlight". I'll do what I can to give each character a chance to shine at something they enjoy or are particularly skilled at.
I use a lot of relativism with the concept of "fairness" in my games.
There have been times when a single bad die roll for a mundane action has killed the entire party (had a few times where a misjump in Traveller ended up with a Ship Destroyed result). Sometimes the dice just seem to hate the players that night. In cases like that, I'll fudge the outcome of the roll.
If the players have proceeded with a stupid course of action that endangers the entire party, I won't fudge the outcome. I've made the phrase "Stupidity Kills" my mantra in running a game.
I've played a lot of pick-up games in FLGS, college classrooms, and onboard ship. More often than not, there is one guy who gets off on deliberately sabotaging the rest of the players in game. You know the type, likes playing fishmalks, kender, and gungans as characters. When the party is trying to sneak past the sleeping BBEG, insists on having his character sneeze loudly so that the BBEG wakes up. Its not fair what this player does to the party, but I allow it if the party is so uncaring about the game that they don't kill this lawncrapper character in game before he succeeds in his sabotage.
So GM fiat is forced upon the game if a random situation would prematurely end the game, but the results of player mistakes or bad judgement stand even if they result in TPK. In the former, the players have no control over the result while in the latter the players have all the control over the result.
EDIT: On character balance, there is no fairness. If I'm convinced that a player will not arbitrarily abuse an ubermensch character in exchange for good roleplaying, then I'll allow it. So a disparity in power levels comes up, but gets balanced by the players themselves placing limitations on their own characters.
I want to have everybody have a fair chance to contribute, be useful and shape the course of the game. This should absolutely not be an "Angel Summoner & BMX Bandit" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw)-relationship. Of course, total balance is not available unless the system ist extremely abstract like a storygame or Risus, but in general the PCs should be close to each other.
In regards of gains and losses, I correct nothing. Who gains power in my games was either smart, far-seeing or gambled right, and who loses power was either dumb, careless or gambled on the wrong time. They had their fair chance, and they still have their chance to close up or turn the tables if they play smart, but as it basically boils down to player decisions and their impact, it would be disrespectful if I as the GM would negate the consequences.
Well, I recently went to a card-based generation method because I got tired of dealing with the foibles of diced stats but I want characters to be about equal in potential and I HATE point-buy.
How much fairness is required varies from group to group and situation to situations. But generally, so long as everyone feels like they are contributing or their character is important, the aim of balancing is met.
I do beleive that having characters more or less balanced to begin with is the easier way to go about that. Some balance arguments on the internet go way beyond this level and into a "theoretical balance" level that really isn't meaningful... situations vary more wildly that "gnat's ass" balancing is ever going to acheive.
While having approximately balanced character does help all the players feel like their characters can meaningfully contribute, the GM is not off the hook. The GM still must ensure that the opportunity arises for characters to utilize their abilities.
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
After designing my game rules as best I can for balance (ie no classes have intrinsic advantages over others, overall) the in-game events are not controlled for "fairness". If the Characters do x, y, z and it results in some getting good stuff and others not, that's just how it goes. Life is not fair.
Another aspect is that I think cheating on the die rolls is a form of "unfairness" and leads down the road to favoritism and other baddies like the dark side of GM Fiat. So I avoid die-roll cheating. If I do feel the need to cheat then I review the rules to determine if they require balancing.
As for lucky breaks, we all get lucky breaks now and then. That's fine. I don't enforce a "oh now everyone needs to get one" style. Same is true for unlucky breaks. I just go with the dice.
As for spot-light, I usually go around the room with "What do you do?" so everyone gets a chance to role-play as they wish. Some people like the spot-light, but I've found that some people don't really. Those non-spot-lighters are usually there to go along for the ride, like a roller coaster, and I've found it better to let the players play however they like. You get the spot-light more if you play it up. And that's that.
Overall, so long as the rules are fair, and the die rolling is done without cheating, then I feel the game is being played Fair. What happens in the game-world, that's another matter and I have no compulsion about making that "fair" whatsoever. Let the chips fall where they may.
I try to give each of the characters situations where they can use whatever abilities or predilections they've come up with. Aside from that, there are always going to be a few players that drive things more than others, and I'll occasionally whip up stuff or provide opportunities to characters that are less aggressive about elbowing their two cents in.
As far as "balance," or whatever, ehhhh, I'm not really interested in micro-managing the dynamic. Some players want to bulk up mechanically, some are less interested in working the system. They choose their own fates, and they like that I don't get in the way too much. I let the dice do a lot of the heavy lifting, and we're all cool with that.
With regard to fame, fortune, power, etc., nah - it's impossible to balance so many variables, and destroys the possibility of any sort of status relationships in group. In one game I just ran, a character became jarl of the tribe, and the other characters ended up as his trusted circle of advisors. He had a bad-ass, ancestral axe, and they didn't. Keeping him in power was a big focus for the group, and his character's journey necessarily became a big focus of the campaign. The kitchen cabinet all had their own bailiwicks and spheres of influence and special relationships to exploit, so famous-osity didn't really come into it much.
Quote from: RPGPunditWhat is fairness in the context of playing RPGs, and just how much of it do you think is needed?
There are two types of fairness in the world and in RPGs:
- Fairness of process (i.e., the same rules apply to everyone)
- Fairness of results (i.e., everyone has the same thing)
The two are not compatible with each other so pick one.
I must be fair to my players. As long as I am fair to them, we have a lot of fun and the game rocks. I don't necessarily have to be fair to the characters. In fact being unfair to the characters also makes it fun. The main difference is spotlight time for me, giving every character something to do, but at the same time making them suffer through their failings, and strive for successes.
It works rather well most of the time.
Quote from: RPGPunditWell, how important is it, in your RPG games?
Define "fair". As others have stated above, "fairness" is not necessarily "balance". I believe that, for a game to work well, it needs to be fair, in that there exist a consistent set of rules that are understood and followed by all players, and that there are guidelines for reasonably interpreting decisions where rules may not strictly apply. I believe that, where one player may be granted a different role from the other players, as with the GM, that player's role must still follow all of the rules that apply to all players. While a role like the GM may be granted a special subset of rules, and perhaps powers and priviledges that apply to him only, none of these special rules, powers, or priviledges should deprive any other players of an expected outcome of the rules that apply to all.
That's a quick and essential over-view of what I think "fairness" is in a game.
!i!
I'm against the idea that the old chipmunk of "Juicer vs. vagabond" uneven character balance at creation is necessarily unfair. I don't think its necessarily a problem. My opinion on this comes from personal experience, when many years ago I played in a RIFTS campaign (not just any, either, a RIFTS campaign played and run by teenagers, back in the early days of that game, so its not like I was a particularly mature player or had a particularly mature GM), wherein I played a Rogue Scholar and everyone else around me were Glitter Boys, Dragon Hatchlings, and Cyborgs.
And yet, I found stuff to do.
In my Legion campaign, you could say that the characters started out "Unfair"; One of the PCs has all the powers of Superman (only able to use them one at a time, but still). The other? Can fire energy blasts from his hands that do a little more damage than a blaster, and can create light. A third? Can turn invisible.
These are not exactly balanced character ideas, nor are they even fair, because its not like the players got to pick which powers they had. So these fuckers didn't even have a choice coming into it.
And yet this has turned out to be one of the best campaigns I've ever run, and my players are all loving it.
I think there's just two kinds of "fairness" that need to be enforced: one is GM favoritism (if the GM is felt to be preferring one player consistently over the others), or equality of dice fairness (either the GM will occasionally fudge for everyone, or he fudges for no man). In other words, the players must have the perception that the GM is being fair with them in how he referees the game.
Beyond that I think nothing else is needed.
RPGPundit
My players are hostile towards the idea of enforced fairness, and luckily for me I've never tried to enforce it. They regulate themselves-if one character or player is beasting on another player or his character the group will make it clear when they've had enough. Be it in game or out.
Recently we had a player who suffered a family emergency that has kept him from the table for three sessions now. Some pretty serious shit in his personal life. Surprisingly the other players have decided, with no input from me, that he shouldn't be penalized because his mom had a seizure and wrapped her car around a tree. So they've divided their treasure, and XP to keep him on par with them.
I'm pretty proud of them for that. But there is no house rule on dividing treasure, or who gets what. They handle all that on their own.
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.