Game Balance

[Epoch]

It seems to me that most of us are agreeing quite well on the general concept that participation and the ability to contribute to play-events is the key variable.

The trouble is, methods to achieve that are as various as the day is long, ranging from, "Well, we all just agree to include one another," to, "If everyone has 100 points to spend on a character than the impact on game-events is kept fairly close to parity."

Yes.  And I don't mean to say that the latter is better than the former.  It's just that, if you don't want/need the latter, it's really easy to throw out.  It's much less easy to introduce systematic game balance in a game that doesn't have any built in.

Which method is selected is clearly going to depend on tons of other things, most of which get all GNS-y pretty quickly. And I know this topic may still be iffy to some, but I think this whole business of thinking about the character's Metagame (player's ability to diddle outcomes; various goals; etc) as well as Effectiveness & Resource (hit points, roll-to-hit, spell list) goes a long way toward helping any "balance" technique to achieve that uber-goal.

Well, obviously Meta-world stuff (side note:  I think that Jim "Supplanter" Henley made a good point some while ago that "meta-game" is horribly mauling its definition.  If it's in the rule set, it's in-game.  It may be OOC, but it's in-game) is tabboo for certain game styles.  But if it's not tabboo, then you're right that it's a valuable way to retain balance while allowing a wider range in character concepts.

That said, designers need to be a bit careful about just liberally throwing in meta-world mechanics.  Even among people who aren't immersionists and don't mind meta-world aspects, I think that a lot of people aren't just interested in balance as a way to remain participatory, but also because they like their characters and want their characters to be participatory.  So meta-world mechanics which aim to increase your ability to carve off chunks of plot for your character to deal with might be considered very appropriate, while meta-world mechanics which are seperate from character will be less favoured.

Obviously, some people just want to participate, and don't care how they do it.

[Laurel]

I'm going to stick with my stance that avatarism is a key componant to causing unhappy game unbalance (opposed to players having fun in an unbalanced game) that no system mechanic can fix.  I'll define what the term avatarism represents to me though.

Avatarism= a player rating their success/fun based on their character becoming the 'star of the show'.  This isn't dissing Gamism, because what I'm talking about isn't at all the same thing.  Avatarism is, to me, a psychological need to have your character obtain the status as 'the best'- be it the smartest, strongest, most powerful, sexiest, because by being the best *character* you prove that you are the best *player* and therefore deserving of respect by the other players.  Its an unconscious thing where player A will go to any lengths to compete with player B and player C and have their character acknowledged by all as superior, and therefore, acknowledging them as the superior player.   By the same token, the avatarist who's character is a "sidekick" or "supporting character" during an important scene or game session feels like they are being treated unfairly and are unwanted or not intelligent, etc.,  

With this kind of thinking going on,  the player or players involved aren't actually seeking Game Balance and will find loopholes in any mechanic.  I don't have any major problems with people playing like that, as long as they're happy, their fellow players are happy, the GM is happy, yada yada.  
   
People who like sharing the spotlight, who don't equate character achievement=player achievement or who are focussed on group-supporting goals of any flavor of GNS are more likely to be happier players and can find better, more congenial game 'balance' with a more varied group of power level characters than any group containing one or more avatarist ever will, no matter what mechanics the GM utilizes.

[Le Joueur]

I often come back to the Lois and Clark: the New Adventures of Superman model

I think that it's an extremely dubious proposition to ever use non-RPG examples as a way of showing how non-standard game/play balance can "work."

And I am dubious that "balance" works.

I think that systems should always attempt to provide some kind of game balance.

And I don't.  I have never seen 'game balance' even work 'on the field' the way it's intended by the designers.  At best, it's totally arbitrary, and at worse, completely nonsensical.  Normally, 'game balancing' mechanics always seem out of touch with play.  Not only that, but whatever the designer deemed 'valuable' never stays as such, changing as the values change in the situation.  (Take a combat character onto the floor of the senate and tell me all his points are 'balanced' versus his combat 'weak' politician friend.)

You can always throw out a points cap for characters, or just tell the players to fill out the character sheet with whatever arbitrary numbers they want.  Ultimately, without some concept of "balance," a system for character generation is silly.

That's exactly what Scattershot does with point caps.  Points in Scattershot are a limited measure of mechanical effectiveness and suggestive of niche.  Balance, as has been questioned in this thread, is maintained by the social contract to not let any character unfairly overshadow others in a scene they have 'high value' in.  So let me go on record simply saying I disagree and that I doubt either of us will move on our positions.

Fang Langford

[Epoch]

I think that systems should always attempt to provide some kind of game balance.

And I don't.  I have never seen 'game balance' even work 'on the field' the way it's intended by the designers.  At best, it's totally arbitrary, and at worse, completely nonsensical.  Normally, 'game balancing' mechanics always seem out of touch with play.  Not only that, but whatever the designer deemed 'valuable' never stays as such, changing as the values change in the situation.  (Take a combat character onto the floor of the senate and tell me all his points are 'balanced' versus his combat 'weak' politician friend.)

Okay.  Those characters are balanced in a game which has roughly equal parts social interaction and combat.  There.  Wasn't that easy?

As an example of game balancing working on the field the way it's intended by the designers, I propose D&D3 (AD&D2, as well, for that matter).  The classes are consistantly play to each other's weaknesses and provide difference without dominance.

Now, certainly, game balance can only get you so far in terms of play balance.  Ultimately, a GM can ruin the best mechanically balanced game, or balance the most mechanically uneven game.  However, I repeat that it's always, inevitably, easier to throw out mechanical balance than to add it in.

You can always throw out a points cap for characters, or just tell the players to fill out the character sheet with whatever arbitrary numbers they want.  Ultimately, without some concept of "balance," a system for character generation is silly.

That's exactly what Scattershot does with point caps.  Points in Scattershot are a limited measure of mechanical effectiveness and suggestive of niche.  Balance, as has been questioned in this thread, is maintained by the social contract to not let any character unfairly overshadow others in a scene they have 'high value' in.  So let me go on record simply saying I disagree and that I doubt either of us will move on our positions.

Why do you have points?  What does it mean that they're a "measure of mechanical effectiveness"?

[joshua neff]

Okay. Those characters are balanced in a game which has roughly equal parts social interaction and combat. There. Wasn't that easy?

Only if the game mechanics facilitate both characters getting equal "to do" time. Otherwise, yes, they're balanced point-wise, but the only guarantee the players have that the combat-oriented character will get as much to do as the social-oriented character (& vice-versa) is by GM fiat &/or social contract between all the players.

I think I'm with Fang on this one. The whole question of "balance" is problematic, because in what way are we talking about balance? Balanced characters, in that each one was created equally (same number of points, for example). Or are we talking about balanced players, so that each one gets the same amount of "to do", regardless of how "powerful" the characters are (as with, say, Superman & Lois Lane--ignoring the show for the moment & just going by characters).

As a GM, I don't care if all the players are the same "strength". I'm more concerned that they get equal contributions to the story. (Take the forthcoming Buffy RPG from Eden as an example. From what I understand, you can play a Scooby who is much weaker than a Buffy or Spike character. But you'll get more Story Points, to contribute to the story even as you're getting your ass kicked.) & as a player, my concerns are the same--I love to play "sidekick" characters who are les powerful than other characters, as long as I get equal "to do" time. On the other hand, I've played in games in which my character was built on the same number of points, but because I'd put the points in "the wrong places" (i.e., not where the GM planned to have the characters tested), I got left out of the story.

So, yes, balanced characters are in no way really "balanced" without either agreement to have the players get equal "to do" opportunities or written rules to facilitate this. Player balance, not character balance.

[Epoch]

Okay. Those characters are balanced in a game which has roughly equal parts social interaction and combat. There. Wasn't that easy?

Only if the game mechanics facilitate both characters getting equal "to do" time. Otherwise, yes, they're balanced point-wise, but the only guarantee the players have that the combat-oriented character will get as much to do as the social-oriented character (& vice-versa) is by GM fiat &/or social contract between all the players.

Yup.  That's life.  Mechanical balance can't do it all for you (though it's possible to mechanically balance spotlight time too, if that's your thing).

I think I'm with Fang on this one. The whole question of "balance" is problematic, because in what way are we talking about balance? Balanced characters, in that each one was created equally (same number of points, for example). Or are we talking about balanced players, so that each one gets the same amount of "to do", regardless of how "powerful" the characters are (as with, say, Superman & Lois Lane--ignoring the show for the moment & just going by characters).

Well, I laid out my feelings on this matter in the last balance thread (which Ron helpfully linked to earlier in this thread):  Specifically, I don't think that either pure spotlight time based balance or pure efficacy based balance are satisfying.

My concept of a perfectly play-balanced scenario is one in which my character gets to make as many and as critical-to-the-"plot" decisions as everyone else, and gets the same amount of spotlight time as everyone else.  ("Plot" is a shorthand for: "the process of dealing with the biggest conflict which is important to all or most of the player characters."  It's not meant to invoke narrativism, dramatism, or any other literary-emulative-based play style).

I'm not happy if I'm playing a character who gets plenty of spotlight time but is ultimately unimportant to the larger group.

As a GM, I don't care if all the players are the same "strength". I'm more concerned that they get equal contributions to the story. (Take the forthcoming Buffy RPG from Eden as an example. From what I understand, you can play a Scooby who is much weaker than a Buffy or Spike character. But you'll get more Story Points, to contribute to the story even as you're getting your ass kicked.) & as a player, my concerns are the same--I love to play "sidekick" characters who are les powerful than other characters, as long as I get equal "to do" time. On the other hand, I've played in games in which my character was built on the same number of points, but because I'd put the points in "the wrong places" (i.e., not where the GM planned to have the characters tested), I got left out of the story.

I find it useful to differentiate between "well balanced" and "attaining the ultimate goal, which is that everybody's ecstatic about the game."  Some people don't require balance for enjoyment of an RPG.  It sounds like you care about spotlight time but not efficacy-based balance -- which is great and all, but given that a larger number of people demonstrably do care about efficacy-based balance, I continue to believe that game systems ought to help try to achieve efficacy-based balance through a mechanical balancing of the system.

So, yes, balanced characters are in no way really "balanced" without either agreement to have the players get equal "to do" opportunities or written rules to facilitate this. Player balance, not character balance.

It sounds to me like you're saying (doubtless unintentionally, 'cause it seems out of character for you), "Hey, as long as I get my share of what I think's important, I don't give a rat's ass if everyone else has a good time."

Now, of course, it's quite plausible that you have a group where nobody cares about efficacy-based balance, so you aren't actually leaving anyone out in the cold.

It's equally plausible (and, in my anecodotal experience, this is the majority experiance in non-unhappy gaming groups) that your group creates efficacy-based balance on-the-fly, giving you the impression that systematic balance is not important while none the less working towards the same goal.

[joshua neff]

It sounds to me like you're saying (doubtless unintentionally, 'cause it seems out of character for you), "Hey, as long as I get my share of what I think's important, I don't give a rat's ass if everyone else has a good time."

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. You're right--if I said that, I didn't mean it. But you're also right in guessing that with my group, player balance is more important than character balance. Actually, that applies to most groups I've been in, & every group I've enjoyed playing with. I've had players as me-as-GM if they could use less points than they were given to make their character, because otherwise the character would be "more powerful than I want". I'm very sure that, as you say, a lot of people currently playing RPGs desire mechanically-balanced characters. I don't think that means every or most RPGs should do something to provide for mechanically-balanced characters (or at least go out of their way--to be honest, I'm hard-pressed at the moment to think of many RPGs that don't provide mechanically-balanced characters. Mike Gentry's Fudge of Cthulhu is the only one I can think of right now that simply says "Make your character as strong or as weak as you want"). Again, I don't think character balance is nearly as important as player balance. I suspect that even among people who are concerned with character balance, they'd still be unhappy if player balance is uneven. But I don't have any hard evidence on that.

I do find your comment about "that's life" to be less than useful. It certainly doesn't strengthen your argument, nor does it do anything to mine & Fang's. Just kind of sits there, not really saying anything.

[Epoch]

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. You're right--if I said that, I didn't mean it. But you're also right in guessing that with my group, player balance is more important than character balance. Actually, that applies to most groups I've been in, & every group I've enjoyed playing with. I've had players as me-as-GM if they could use less points than they were given to make their character, because otherwise the character would be "more powerful than I want".

I've played in a couple of games that were like that, with people intentionally playing wildly different power-level characters.  And, honestly, I don't think that any of them succeeded (they were fine for me -- I know my own proclivities, and just played characters that were powerful enough that I would be important for the plot -- but I saw increasing boredom and disenfranchisement on the part of the people whose characters weren't in the same league as mine).  Even though the GM went out of his way to pitch them plots, and I and the other power players tried to stay out of their way.

It gets worse when people play their characters immersively -- suppose I'm playing a hyper-competent character who's basically a nice guy.  You're playing an average joe.  When you have problems, I'm going to tend to say, "Hey, you want me to take care of that?"  Because I can, and it's not a big deal.

Since I don't tend to immerse unless I'm actively involved in an engaging scene for my character, that's not a big deal for me -- I can just say, as the player, "No, I don't think my character will get involved in this."  But it'd be tough for a more immersive player.

I'm very sure that, as you say, a lot of people currently playing RPGs desire mechanically-balanced characters.

I want to be very clear on this:  Nobody wants mechanically-balanced characters per se.  They want efficacy-balanced characters.  It's totally possible for a 20th level Wizard and a 1st level street urchin ("Commoner" character class) to be efficacy-balanced in certain (rather narrow) situations.

Mechanical balance is a tool for achieving efficacy-balance, and one that's particularly useful in a long-term games with a broad range of challenges.  That's where mechanical balance shines, because the many differentiated challenges allows things like the fighter and the senator to actually achieve balance, and where it becomes increasingly hard for the GM to offer situational modifiers which balance characters like the (hyperbolic) 20th level Wizard and 0th level urchin.

(While the 20th level/1st level example is hyperbolic, I do note that I have played games which were the equivalent of about 12th level/2nd level in terms of character power spread.)

Again, it's my experience (and hey, it may just be that you and I have gamed with vastly different sets of people) that succesful game groups tend to efficacy-balance, whether through use of games mechanics or through social contracting.  And I've seen games become unhappy because the social contracting became increasingly obtrusive and unsustainable.

I don't think that means every or most RPGs should do something to provide for mechanically-balanced characters (or at least go out of their way--to be honest, I'm hard-pressed at the moment to think of many RPGs that don't provide mechanically-balanced characters.

John Wick specifically disclaimed that goal in conversations on the GO about all of his games.  Deird're Brooks disclaimed balance as an important feature of Storyteller game chargen.

(In both cases, I think it's clear that the writers are to some extent incorrect -- All of those games have trade-offs, checks, and balances in their chargen systems which create very rough balance in certain ways.)

Again, I don't really see the point of many of the formalized character generation systems out there if not to balance characters?  Why not simply say, "Write down whatever stats you want," if balance is truly not a concern?

(And yes, I've played games where that was the chargen system).

(Further side note: There are other reasons for having a formalized chargen system, they just aren't reasons which I see many games as fulfilling.  For example, in the chargen system for The Vietnam Game, I wrote rules that said that, essentially, every character must have at least one below-average stat.  This isn't for balance, it's because I think that it fits the genre and makes for an interesting game if everyone has a noticably weak area.)

Mike Gentry's Fudge of Cthulhu is the only one I can think of right now that simply says "Make your character as strong or as weak as you want"). Again, I don't think character balance is nearly as important as player balance. I suspect that even among people who are concerned with character balance, they'd still be unhappy if player balance is uneven. But I don't have any hard evidence on that.

Yes, I tend to agree.  However, while you can balance spotlight time with mechanics, most GM's at this point have become very comfortable with balancing it based on social contracts, so I don't worry too much about it.

On the other hand, in my experience, it's more difficult and more likely to produce poor results if serious power disparities are balanced by social contract.

I do find your comment about "that's life" to be less than useful. It certainly doesn't strengthen your argument, nor does it do anything to mine & Fang's. Just kind of sits there, not really saying anything.

Well, one thing I've been trying to emphasize throughout this conversation, and, I think, with frustratingly little response on the other side, is that mechanical balance isn't a goal, it's a technique -- a valuable technique, I think.

So I've been trying to say to you and to Fang that yes, it's certainly possible that, even with the best mechanical balance available, you can have unbalanced games.  You keep bringing those examples up, and they aren't addressing my points.

So that's why the "Yes, that's life" comment.  Yes, the best game can be ruined by poor participants.  That's life.  And having a good ruleset for one area doesn't mean that the game's not broken in other areas.  That is also life.  And the best ruleset in the world isn't a thinking creature which can react to every possible permutation of play.  That, too, is life.  None of that means we should make broken rulesets (a tenet which I thought was commonly accepted on the Forge), and it doesn't make for a very useful basis from which to argue.

[ Edited to fix a grammer mistake. ]

[Le Joueur]

Okay, I've been invoked enough on this thread, but I am just not following.

For those of us who have trouble paying attention, what was your point?  Here are a few from the last article; let me know if I'm getting warm.

I want to be very clear on this:  Nobody wants mechanically-balanced characters per se.  They want efficacy-balanced characters.

Fine.  We were just using them interchangably.  So let's talk about whether efficacy-balanced in-game characterization particularly increases the likelihood of good games for as complicated as some of these 'balancing' techniques are.

On the other hand, in my experience, it's more difficult and more likely to produce poor results if serious power disparities are balanced by social contract.

For an implicit social contract most certainly, I cannot agree more.  Unfortunately I see rules or mechanics or techniques or whatever gets published in the game telling you what to do as an explicit social contract, that why I hate the 'drop any that doesn't work for you texts.'

I mean we're getting pretty deep into 'grey areas' here.  My explicit social contract is your rules.  Your social contract is my naive fun-based goals.  Can you give us a concrete point to stand on?  I think we may actually be agreeing.

Unless you are suggesting that explicitly efficacy-balanced characterization is more likely to create good gaming experiences than explicit social contracts (like spotlight time rules) in anything more than just your experiences.

Well, one thing I've been trying to emphasize throughout this conversation, and, I think, with frustratingly little response on the other side, is that mechanical balance isn't a goal, it's a technique -- a valuable technique, I think.

You see, here we are again, agreeing.  I just want to suggest that a game is more than a set of rules.  I think a game can make more of the social contract elements of a game explicit.  I would go so far as saying that it could do so to the point of overshadowing the rules.  It's blind speculation, but I think such a game would be much more likely to satisfy than a game that merely balances efficacies in characterization.

So I've been trying to say to you and to Fang that yes, it's certainly possible that, even with the best mechanical balance available, you can have unbalanced games.  You keep bringing those examples up, and they aren't addressing my points.

Okay, just for clarity, what are your points?

Again, I don't really see the point of many of the formalized character generation systems out there if not to balance characters?  Why not simply say, "Write down whatever stats you want," if balance is truly not a concern?

If that's the way you see things, then that's exactly how Scattershot does it; no formalization at all.  (Oh the players can create challenge limits, but not the gamemaster.)  The techniques I am working on 'out' the social contract in certain ways that lead to player balancing in spite of efficacy imbalance.  It focuses on making every player's contribution to the game relevant to the game itself regardless of their character's efficacy.  These techniques draw explicit lines over who controls what and where and how to be careful about other people's 'toes.'  It's the only way I can see around the Senator/Fighter problem (like when the game never gets to the senate).

Fang Langford