I've been reading some old posts about game balance and searching the forum for something I readed some time ago, but I couldn't find it. Now I'm not so sure it's about game balance in terms of giving players too much or too little importance in the story...it's more about what I wrote as the title of this topic: traits, skills, resources and abilities that the game allows for the players -either from the beggining or from some point of the game as a result of leveling up the characters or getting access to special items or information- which render the GM powerless to throw a decent challenge to their players in some moments, or even whole aspects of a campaign.
It could be a powerful spell at first levels or just one, way-too-versatile simple spell. It could be the irrestricted ability to fly or teleport anytime, anywhere. I was wondering if there's actually a list of things in a game that could make things difficult for a GM, somewhere here in the Forge or in other webpages, if you could be so kind to give me some directions. Many thanks, and my apologies if I'm just re-posting a long-ago dead subject.
The problem with such a list is it would be way too subjective. Different GMs have different styles and that can have a major impact on what things can unbalance a game.
As a general rule, some of the following ideas can make things difficult for GMs (although there really isn't anything that can't be worked around).
1) Abilities that grant immunity to attack or damage (flight when the majority of opponents have melee attacks).
2) Abilities that allow players to bypass a section of the adventure (I once had a character who had almost unlimited shapeshifting. Once when in the Underdark I shapeshifted into an Umberhulk and tunneled past most of the encounters for the next 3 game sessions).
3) Abilities that grant players single roll resolution (save or die) effects, particularly if they can be used against key NPCs. (The climatic battle of an epic campaign should last longer than one round).
Ultimately all of these problems arise not from any inherant problem with the power itself (although some game systems do have exploitable loopholes) but rather from the players knowing their characters and understanding their abilities better than the GM does. A clever player can break almost any power given the right opportunity.
That said, it is actually ok if players walk through certain stages of the campaign. It will happen occasionaly, no matter what the GM does to counter. The key is for the GM to recognize those moments, reward the players for their creativity (players should never be punished for outsmarting the GM), and to move past as quickly as possible to something that does challenge them.
As Rikiji alludes to, these sound like problems in only particularly-styled games.
I was originally thinking they would be problems where the combat and exploration (or "puzzle-solving") aspects are paramount: that those things are the reason to play, rather than the color that happens around the real story. As a one-round battle can be very climatic from a narrative perspective if played right: you've finally found and surrounded the individual responsible for the death and injustice of the campaign and pass judgment, *bam* he's dead. Justice served. With the satisfaction not coming from a big end-boss battle.
But from a Gamist perspective, I myself don't see any of those "problem rules" listed above as being particularly problematic: those are all completely valid ways in which to solve or beat the game or various encounters, sometimes quite creatively. In fact, Old School-type play rewards that sort of "around the adventure" thinking, as combat and encounters were often something to be avoided as often as possible while still completing objectives.
However, from a standpoint of a purely exploratory "I want the players to look at what I made" approach, I can see where there's a problem as the work the GM has put into a particular presentation is wholly bypassed. However, I'm not a fan of that type of play or GMing myself: I read books or play CRPGs if I want that particular experience. The issue isn't, then, necessarily "bad" rules, but needing a different rules-set one that doesn't provide the player characters with powers or methods that could be used to undercut the planned progression of the scenario.
All of the above problems boil down to the same one:
The expectation that the story comes from the GM, who prepares it in advance.
That is indeed a thing about many systems that annoys me as a GM. I much prefer when a game requires fairly little of me to keep a game on the rails, and gives me great tools for the small proportion of that which must be done in advance.
Boy, that all sounds confused on my part, and I wrote it. If anyone has trouble parsing through that, let me know and I'll try to clarify (that's what I get for trying to write with three kids talking in my ear every five minutes).
Hi,
Why are you worried about annoying the GM?
Have you been annoyed by stuff in a game, like teleport or such, and thought 'Look, this is so annoying, it's clearly not the right way to do it'?
So you've come to think there's a right way that's not being met by these things? Or as I'd put it, you've started to proto form your own right way (I'd put it that way whether you agree or not (disagreement with evidence might change things though)).
Hi Monk,
If for some reason you're not convinced by others here to simply avoid this problem, here's my advice on whittling it down:
Go physics nerd.
Most really abusive player abilities boil down to immense amounts of energy. This is most obvious with telekinesis -- if you can move a huge object, you have a godlike crushing weapon; if you can move an object very fast, you have armor-piercing bullets. Rule out feats past a certain energy threshold, and make players pay proportionately (e.g., take the points required to double a mass and square it to double a velocity) for feats below that threshold.
Failing that, here's a list of inconvenient stuff to rule out:
- Suspend heavy things in mid-air and drop them.
- Launch things at extreme speed.
- Go anywhere you want (whether through teleport, flight, or intangibility).
- See into any place you want (whether through teleport, flight, or clairsentience).
- Read the minds of NPCs who know the GM's plot.
- Target enemies with teleportation or powerful transformation spells.
- Target precise parts of enemies with any spell.
- Harden gear to an extreme degree.
- Produce infinite wealth (e.g. a quick and cheap "wood -> gold" spell).
- Resurrect the dead.
Of course, any of these can be made workable by making it single-use (potion) or expensive (sacrifice precious resource, e.g. useful magic items or characters' lives) or hideously dangerous.
Ps,
-David
Oh, and one more -- delayed and remote effects. An otherwise balanced combat spell becomes a GM's nightmare if it can be left to "go off" where and when a player wants.
Many thanks everybody for the feedback, let's see...
I'm taking note of your lists, Rikiji and David, it was exactly what I needed, many thanks! It's true that the problem it's about how many times the players outsmart the gm in a campaign or a single session. As a GM I know I'm an entertainer, not a judge. If the story is good I keep it going and don't allow the rules to get in the middle. So I just need a way so players don't outsmart me so much that I run out of plots and stuff to throw at them. A way for solving this are quick random tables for preparing encounters and opponents, which I complement with a system where no success is automatic, and every power has a partially random outcome level, regardless of how much levels the character has in a particuilar special ability.
I'm not sure about going heavy physics, but any way you can outsmart players at least once per session will do, specially if they believe you. The main point is to avoid arguments with the players, either with plain simple rules, detailed rules, homebrew rules or my favorite: a single roll to determine which judgement applies, player's or GM's.
Now don't take me wrong: I don't support GM rail-roading. I just want to be ready whenever players get too creative and toss a week of GM preparation to the trash. And I believe that covers any emotional attachment you get with your PCs or NPCs. Allow me to ellaborate a bit on this: It's the same thing that happens when a player grows attached to a character he's been playing for too long. For a GM, the more time he invests in preparing a campaign or a session, the more he risks to get attached to NPCs, creatures or events he's prepared. Most good GMs know how to let go for the sake of the story, but to some extent even the best GM love the work they do and will try to protect it a bit at least until it has served it's purpose. And so even the best GM can fall into some little railroading. It's not a crime, but if it goes wrong and players have to suffer it instead of enjoying it, it's no fun at all for anybody.
That's why I prefer to use quick tables lately, and games that integrate those tables well with their system. The less work you get to prepare a session, the more ready you are as a GM to let everything go and allow the players to make a good story and have some fun of their own. Quick character generation serves the same purpose from the other side: As a player, if a character you made in 5 minutes gets killed, it's not a big deal even if it was a good one. You don't have to waste the rest of the session creating another, you can even join again the party in the same session.
Any thoughts about this? many thanks so far!
There's really only one item to my list as a GM..
If it disrupts the flow of gameplay, circumvents the 'fun factor', or is done purely to make others angry/jealous/sad/hurt, then it is unbalancing the game, and needs to be removed by whatever means is most expedient.
I do not care if players have exceeding powerful skills, abilities, items, half an army of NPC henchman to do battle on their behalf, magical talking swords that spew 12-dice fireballs on command. It is intolerable when it makes the game not fun. Any game, any setting. When you lose fun, you lose the game.
I have to say, I agree with a lot of stuff that has been said. SeeThirty gives the best advice yet, but Rikiji and David have some excellent points too.
I'm a reasonably new GM, I'm pretty experienced as a player and I know the systems I use pretty much inside and out, at least the core material. So take my advice as to heart or not as you want. What I do know is that you should NEVER recycle material. Using players, NPCs, worlds, items over again - that's fine. Using the same story however isn't. My first DM did this and all of the other players, who had gamed with him before, knew what was going to happen. We had fun, but we ended up getting too far out of the story because of it.
Another bit of advice that I have picked up along the way would be to not plan too deeply. You are the GM and you are there to tell the story, yes. You're there to crush their hopes. If they want a Vorpal Club of Ogre Beating, it's your place to say yes or no. If they are a Post Office Worker with no connections and they want Military Grade guns, that's your place to crush their hopes and dreams. But planning in advance seems to bring more trouble than not. Get a loose set up and be ready for them to make it go 180 or even 360 degrees the wrong way. I'm currently DMing a One on One game with my friend from college. I set up a basic structure and then I let the dice go to work. I don't set out to thwart my players or even undermine their plans and aspirations. As a DM I get to know their business and mine too. So it's not my place to say "They want to get the prisoners out safe. How can I stop them?" Instead, I go for "They want to help the prisoners escape safely, what do the dice say the opposition is? Or what is a reasonable opposition that I think they should be able to beat?"
Fun. Gaming is about fun, it's about getting away from real life, into your character and just not worrying about anything for a few hours a week. Or month. Or however often you meet. Like SeeThirty said, don't let anything distract from the fun of the game. He said it better than I so I'll leave that be.
Now the initial question was on game balance, I believe. I'm sure that you'll be able to see how the stuff I mentioned is relevant, if not ask me. I'm more than happy to explain. But more on actual game balance.
1. Don't hand out powerful magic early on. By level 10, they should have some decent gear, but nothing too powerful. I made this mistake in a few games and I have to deal with the consequences.
2. Don't be afraid to limit classes, gear, spells, ect. Once again, voice of experience. I did it, I have to deal with it.
3. When planning a campaign for balance, be ready to change everything over a couple of bad rolls. If something horrible should happen early in the game, say your players stumble into a truly random dungeon or compound(setting pending) and they get massacred, don't drop the campaign. Let them start new characters and adjust the balance a bit, perhaps let them find the dungeon later on and see the bodies of their old characters. It adds to the fun, it adds balance and you're good to go.
4. Limit, limit, limit. As David pointed out, if something has far too much OPP(Over Power Potential), nerf it. Limit what it can do. It saves a lot of grief, adds balance and, unless the player is a munchkin game, it generally tends to work.
Just my 2 cp worth,
Rob/Tormir
Hey Monk,
If you want to start an Actual Play thread about some GMing experience(s) that went wrong for you, I'll definitely give what advice I can. I've had some success GMing fantasy adventures with huge amounts of player freedom, but without reading about your game group, the fun parts of play, the bad parts of play, etc., I'd give less than 50/50 odds that any of my suggestions would even apply to you. :)
Ps,
-David
I have found what annoys one GM, pleases another. While some game masters hate things like teleport spells that allow players to overcome obstacles early in the adventure, others have no problem with it-- even enjoy it. I believe the real issue arises when there is nothing else in the game to counter act potentially overpowered abilities. In the case of Teleport, as long as there is something in the game the GM can fall back on negate it, I think it is fine to include. Personally I don't mind things that appear over powered, provided the game gives me enough gears and levers to pull when I need them.
Well, again - it's true it all comes down to fun and the GM beign able to help provide it instead of getting in the way. He's got the same tools the players have, so if the game includes an unlimited teleport at first level, he can counter it having most characters have the same power and the rest having a way to counter it. Only problem is when GM forgets players could do that at first level.
Since my bad memory doesn't help me much when I have to deal with a whole book of rules, I prefer to have few simple rules with a lot of permutations that can be mixed on the run. It's the way my brain operates: I can't remember exact details, so I reason, extrapolate and create quite quickly. That's why when I deal with a complex game, with way too much rules for me to remember, I have to do it by preparing things ahead of time, which reaches to the point of railroading sometimes. I've been seeing a lot of complex independent games lately and I do wonder if the majority of GM's have the same problem dealing with those games or if it's only a problem I have...
Personally, for me, it's when turns take too long.
I hate it when a player gets to make ten attacks practically every turn, it slows things down too much. It's also annoying when players have to spend ten minutes looking something up in the book or sorting through all the crap on their many character sheets.
Play should be streamlined.
I also hate having to explain he complicated mechanics of rpgs to someone who has never played an rpg in their life. I wish that these games were more newby accessible.
I say these three are your worst headaches:
Mobility
Immunity
Certainty
Mobility applies to any form of unusual movement -- teleport, ultra-high speed, tunneling through stone, flight, underwater ability. Any of those, used ruthlessly, can give a character great power.
Immunity is anything that makes a character completely immune to a threat -- force field, skin of steel, 100% magic resistance, insubstantial body, and so on. The character can act without thought to the risk involved.
Certainty is attacks and abilities that always work -- no die roll needed. Even if these are limited by just a few uses per day, it's still more than enough to destroy the GM's strongest opposition. The clever player will time the uses appropriately.
That said, my underlying feeling is that you're dealing with players in a "vs. the GM" mentality, which I personally think is an unhealthy RPG culture. Some players engage in these games not to enjoy roleplaying or create a story with a group but rather to outsmart and humiliate the others, including the GM. They're acting out a need for domination, rather than a desire for cooperative play. The solution here is to keep away from such players. RPG is not (or should not be) a competition to see who can thrash the world the most. For the most part, players should be prepared to engage in the traps and difficulties set by the GM, as this is the meat of the adventure.
Quote from: Jeff B on December 11, 2009, 12:36:46 AM
Mobility applies to any form of unusual movement -- teleport, ultra-high speed, tunneling through stone, flight, underwater ability. Any of those, used ruthlessly, can give a character great power.
It's possible to do these things in a way that's fun for everyone though. I feel that this is actually one of the strengths of 4E (for people that are into this sort of thing).
Such movement can be balanced by limiting usage (encounter/daily movement), restricting it to higher-level play (if levels are used), by making it less reliable (skill checks, such as with "clumsy flight"), and by giving it trade-offs ("overland flight" is faster, but it grants "combat advantage" to attacking foes).
Quote from: chronoplasm on December 08, 2009, 04:57:21 PM
Personally, for me, it's when turns take too long.
I hate it when a player gets to make ten attacks practically every turn, it slows things down too much. It's also annoying when players have to spend ten minutes looking something up in the book or sorting through all the crap on their many character sheets.
Play should be streamlined.
I also hate having to explain he complicated mechanics of rpgs to someone who has never played an rpg in their life. I wish that these games were more newby accessible.
Me too. Complicated mechanics are ok when you and your party can manage them quickly, either because you are geniuses or used to the system. But in order to make a good fun story, mechanics should be streamlined to not interrupt the flow of the players and GM's emotions. I'm struggling to inject the games I'm working on with a concept I rarely find in RPGs: System Efficiency. By this I mean not just making a system that works and gets you anywhere (any system can do that) but doing it with the less amount of stats, rolls and rules.
Many stats can be done to meant many things at once. Let's say you need resistance scores for players to roll in case their characters get poisoned. You can make it a separated stat so it can be modified by race, for example. More meat for your munchkin players. But then you need to make some extra space for all kinds of resistance in your character sheet. Second choice is to make it a derivate stat, like from constitution score. You still need to make space on your character sheet for that... so why not straight roll the constitution score for that? of course it means less customizable characters, but then its all a matter of balancing your game, whatever you like it to be.
Rolls can also be readed and interpreted in many different ways. So instead of rolling one dice for attack and another for damage, you can derivate the amount of damage from the attack roll. Depending on the dice and system you use, you can even tell in one roll if surroundings result damaged by the attack, or whatever you like.
So, going back to the current topic, Rules can be made just to avoid any major threat to the fun of the game, instead of trying to stop every single different trick players come up with to annoy the GM. Then you would need a rule to avoid unlimited mobility, one to avoid unlimited Inmunity, one for perpetual Certainty and I'll add one more: a rule to avoid Abuse of any mechanic -like, a metagame rule where the player can't solve every problem in a single session using the same plan more than three times. That way you can even give teleportation, ghost abilities and death touch to players, but they won't be able to use them more that three times per session... so I hope they get creative enough to make the session fun.
If you make your setting good enough, perhaps it won't need to be a metagame rule, like in Don't Rest Your Mind, where players have god-like abilities that could cost them their lives if they abuse or don't use them wisely.