How To Balance A Game...

[Callan S.]

MisterPoppet: In terms of my point, it doesn't really matter if D&D is missbalanced (in your opinion). The idea is that if you read a design through, there should be no clear winning strategy leaping out at you. If D&D fails in this regard, it was a bad example to bring up and should be forgotten about.

Just think about it: No clear strategy from just reading the book.

PS: It's off topic, but I often find my friends can missinterpret a rule to their benefit, and in their excitement not double check that interpretation. I have to wonder if your friend is similar.

[Vaxalon]

It also bears pointing out that balance is specific to a campaign. Barbarians might not be balanced in Poppet's campaign. This of course is part of the myth of balance.

To clarify what I said before, whatever unevenness remains after the characters have been made, is the responsibility of the DM to smooth out if the social contract requires player-to-player balance.

[Marco]

I have some thoughts on costing attributes (which is the kind of balance Tony is refering to and, I think, a reasonable way to look at the question).

Firstly, some of the values of having a 'correct cost' for an attribute (the points are a useful measure of its utility or effectivness in the game) are:

1. Niche protection (Justin hits this with his 'each class is the best in the game at its shtick). I don't like it when whatever my character does is easily co-opted by someone else for a handful of points.

2. Variance in characters: even if the game revolves around "killing things" then it's nice to have there be several competing styles of doing that. Being able to mechanically distinguish a knight from a barbarian from a sword-saint from a whatever is (IMO) good for party depth. Having a number of options whose prices seem fair to the players and having no set of abilities always overshadow another will help players who want to distinguish their characters within a niche.

For my project, I looked at a few different things (most of these were geared towards Supers-genre but, I think, apply anywhere).

1. Point-Partitioning: if you use a point-buy system consider having different kinds of points for different sets of attributes. Although this is ugly in one respect (two or more different kinds of points to keep track of) it is very powerful in terms of elegantly separating things that are different to value against each other.

You might have 'combat points' and 'other points' in a hack-and-slash game which would ensure that everyone had at least some of both. That's a crude example, of course.

Consider GURPS Supers: an average super gets like 500pts. Each point of Strong Will costs 4pts for +1 to the roll (rolls going from 3-18 on 3d6, starting at 10). It's trivially easy (20pts) to get a Will roll so high that rolling is *almost* academic. A little more expensive (32pts) to get one that *is* always a success under normal circumstances. The cost for super-powers is usually 60-100pts and spending a fraction of that so you'll never fail a Will roll is extremely cheap.

If you separate attribute points from super-power points you resolve this problem making characters who distinguish themselves by strength of will more meaningful.

2. Diminishing Returns: In most games there's an 'average' level of effectivness that's expected. If you're above it, that's usually okay--if you're *way* above it, however, that may create problems (if only by making some mechanical checks unnecessary).

It was my observation that play was the best when players were very good at what they did but not absolute. In order to 'achieve that balance' I think diminishing returns in cost-levels is a useful concept. Basically, make each 'point' of something cost more than the last (or just have the cost increase above some level).

This allows characters to breach the 'limits' without 'overpowering the game.' (note: this terminology is somewhat munchkiny--I have no philosophical problem with powerful or effective characters. It's simply my observation that some of the players I liked playing with wanted the freedom to make the most cost effective characters the could and still have the system, as written support a dramatic challenge for them).

It also has the advantage that a player who 'really cares' (and buys into the diminishing returns territory) will mechanically exceed the character who doesn't--but should not create too wide a disparity (Armor guy is tougher than Energy Dude but not so much so that the two can't fight along side against the same basic level of foes).

3. Knowing what to make cheap: I think that paying extra points for things that are 'rare' or 'cool' is a mistake--point costs should, IMO, be based on effectivness in game-mechanics terms. If things that are 'cool' aren't getting *expressed* in game-mechanics terms then perhaps there's a focus problem with the mechanics.

One example is flight that can carry other people in a wind vortex: yeah, that's 'much better than normal flight'--but if a strong, flying character can fly at top speed with as many people as he can carry or can hang on, then it's just "more convinent." I wouldn't charge much more for that.

Another is GURPS 3rd Ed Claws. Lotta people wanted them, but priced at about 1/3rd your standard starting points and mechanically no better than a carried sword most people I knew deemed them simply not worth it. A bidding system we played with placed them at 4pts, IIRC 1/10th their listed cost. Most people I knew who paid the listed price considered themselves to be paying what we called a 'coolness tax'--extra points because retractable claws were 'cool.'

These are some of the guiding principles I used when making a point-buy system for my project.

-Marco

[MisterPoppet]

Ok first off, I'm not DM. Someone has been is DM. I'm DMing tomorrow.

I did get the point. I know what you're saying. However, I'm saying that so far there is no significant argument with the barbarian. We can argue that this and that is better. Or that these are good in that situation, but it really isn't possible in the case of the barbarian. He can live in the wild, and that's about it. Even with his high amount of life, he stills dies first because he's so easily hit. A cleric isn't always going to be there, you can't rely on it. In our opinion he is useless. He doesn't have anything to make up for the lack of armor (which he needs). I think that if you raised the rage power (or raised it sooner) and gave him an alternative way of dodging attacks. He would be balanced. But this is my opinion, I've studied it as I see fit.

I never said that a winning strategy should pop out at me. My D&D group has studied hard to discover methods of making useful characters. It took my brother 4 months of reading and rereading to find the rangers true potential. We've been working on a lot of "not-easily-high-power" classes. So far, we've found something for everyone, except the barbarians. We're just dumbfounded at how it's so locked into submission.

But you should all remember, this is my opinion. Just because it clashes with yours doesn't mean that it's wrong. It's just different. Like I said, if you can make the barbar useful, I'd like to know. ::sigh::

-Poppet-

[Ben Lehman]

I did get the point. I know what you're saying. However, I'm saying that so far there is no significant argument with the barbarian. We can argue that this and that is better. Or that these are good in that situation, but it really isn't possible in the case of the barbarian. He can live in the wild, and that's about it. Even with his high amount of life, he stills dies first because he's so easily hit. A cleric isn't always going to be there, you can't rely on it. In our opinion he is useless. He doesn't have anything to make up for the lack of armor (which he needs). I think that if you raised the rage power (or raised it sooner) and gave him an alternative way of dodging attacks. He would be balanced. But this is my opinion, I've studied it as I see fit.

BL> Okay, we might be getting off into a "The Mathematical Subtleties of Third Edition D&D" here... I'm sort of torn about whether this is a seperate thread or not.  I'm posting here because you're the topic initiator, so if you think it is on topic...

Anyway.  About the Barbarian: You are wrong.  I mean, there may be particular subtleties regarding your particular campaign.  But, in the general murkiness of nearly every D&D campaign that people post about on this here intarweb, the complaint is almost universally that the Barbarian is overbalanced, not underbalanced.

The first thing you have to understand is that Barbarians, being a 4 skill class, cannot and should not be as good at a normal melee combat than Fighters.  Right, now that that's out of the way.

Barbarians have the following things going for them:  Skills, Rages, Hit Points, Uncanny Dodge, Speed, and (at high levels) Damage Resistance.

The combination of Uncanny Dodge and Speed gives the Barbarian battlefield mobility equalled only by the Monk.  Will a Barbarian die if he charges in ahead of the party and gets surrounded?  Sure, although the Uncanny Dodge (and damage resistance) will slow it down.  The speed isn't so you can get to the fight first.  Rather, use it to whittle away enemies.  Pick up Combat Reflexes and a reach weapon, and take every turn to move into an advantageous attack of opportunity position.  Pick up Improved Trip (expertise is a good feat to get, too) and watch the fun begin.  Further, the lack of flanking penalties means the Barbarian has nothing to fear from rogues, which is seriously helpful when moving across a battlefield to take good targets.  A fighter has to move slow and advance whilst watching his back.  A barbarian owns the field.

Now, the Rage.  How does one go about properly exploiting a rage?  First of all, get a two-handed weapon.  Now you have +2 hit / +3 damage with that weapon, +3 / +3 if you get a focus.  For a low level character, this is extraordinary, and it ain't bad at any level.  Expertise can convert some of that hit bonus into AC, which is precious, and the damage gives you considerably more dropping power.  The extra hit points, which are considerable at high levels, add staying power.  As long as you don't get surrounded, you should be okay.

Now what about skills?  Any Barbarian worth his salt should max out Tumble (a high dex doesn't hurt, either), adding to his maneuverability on the field.  Even at cross-class ranks, this isn't optional.  If you have feats in your options that allow making cross-class skills into class skills -- take them!  Further skill options are Listen, Swim, Climb and Jump (note the mobility -- again).  Not only are these useful for navigating dungeons in general, they also (together with Trap Sense and Indomitable Will) really help out with traps, ambushes, and other unpleasantness that the Fighter, by comparison, can't deal with.

Your local situation (whatever rules mods you use, whether or not you use minis, the prestige classes available, what have you) may change the Barbarian to the point of unplayability.  But this is not the Barbarian in the rules text as written.

yrs--
--Ben

[MisterPoppet]

There ya go! Someone with some sense! I asked to be proved incorrect, and he's the only one that actually did so. You see, this is not my campaign. This is someone else's. It's a campaign setting that they've been using forever (Greyhawk). The major problem is that they don't RP nearly enough. Everything is about battle. And if you aren't a major magic user, you're useless unless you can run in and fight head on. That's the way our DM runs stuff. It's also the reason I volunteered to DM tomorrow. I don't play physical characters, I play magic folks. We use minis, but they don't move much. They're used as very basic representations of battle.

No, this has nothing to do with what I was asking about earlier. He just brought it up as a balancing point (even though I'm making this system to ween them off of D&D). I stated my opinions as I have seen them in the games I've played. And he got all offensive without any info to back himself up. He started with some info, but he kind of studdered on the info. I then, at the spurt of the moment, figured that this would be an opportunity to find out how to balance the barbar with the other classes. You are the one who accomplished this. You have proved me wrong (my second objective in this post). Thank you.

Oddly enough, the person in my group that plays barbarians a lot is named Ben. Hmm... I shall tell them of these barbar traits.

-Poppet-

[MisterPoppet]

Ok, back to topic...

Actually, Marco, I too am trying to keep the giudelines in mind. It needs to be this way for my group. They like to exploit rules very well.

-Poppet-

[Ben Lehman]

There ya go! Someone with some sense! I asked to be proved incorrect, and he's the only one that actually did so.

BL>  Most people here aren't overly familiar with the 3rd edition D&D rules.  This doesn't mean that they "don't have sense," it just means that their taste is different than mine.

You see, this is not my campaign. This is someone else's. It's a campaign setting that they've been using forever (Greyhawk). The major problem is that they don't RP nearly enough. Everything is about battle. And if you aren't a major magic user, you're useless unless you can run in and fight head on. That's the way our DM runs stuff. It's also the reason I volunteered to DM tomorrow. I don't play physical characters, I play magic folks. We use minis, but they don't move much. They're used as very basic representations of battle.

No, this has nothing to do with what I was asking about earlier. He just brought it up as a balancing point (even though I'm making this system to ween them off of D&D).

...

They like to exploit rules very well.

BL>  Okay, I'd like you to consider that this does have to do with what you were asking about earlier.  That the fact that the group likes to exploit rules, the fact that you don't like this style of play, and the fact that you want to use a new system are deeply tied together.

I suggest that what this group enjoys about an RPG may not be what you enjoy about an RPG.  There is nothing wrong with either of you -- you just most likely have incompatible goals in play.

I suggest that you probably don't need to change systems with this group.  The group is happy with what D&D can give them, and it will give it to them in spades, because it is a very well designed system for those purposes.  They don't need to be "weaned from D&D" unless they want to play in some other manner.  Changing systems may make them bitter and resentful, and probably won't change their behavior.

What I will suggest is that you, personally, try to find a different group of people to play with, who are excited and enthusiastic about the sort of play that you like.  There is no reason to hang around a group if you don't like the way that they play!

To discuss this further, we should probably move over into the "Actual Play" forum.  Perhaps you could write up a description of a recent session -- just short details -- and some of the social relationships in your present group.  I think you'll find people here give a lot of good, sensible advice about that sort of thing.

[MisterPoppet]

I'm not speaking of sense in that way. I'm talking about how they say that the barbarian is good but don't really say why (other than it's life and rage, which doesn't amount to much in my group).

I'm not weening them off D&D to change their RP habits, I'm doing it because they play it every other day and it's driving me crazygonuts. Their RP habits cannot be changed, but I know that I can at least get them to play something else. At least I'll try.

I've already tried to find a another group. It's really hard to do though when you live in the middle of nowhere and already know the entire nerd population (yes, I've tried the non-nerds and geeks).

Nevermind on the whole thing. At least they'll be happy about the whole barbarian thing.

-Poppet-