"Balance", "Fairness" ?

[Kat Miller]

As far as  Balance as a design goal; I think that Balance should be considered and accepted or rejected with purpose.  To design a game with out considering Balance leads to unpolished products and gripes about "needed more play testing"  However a well designed game may be unbalanced with good reason.

I concede that Spotlight doesn't equal balance.  

Would Creative Input work instead?

Do different CAs need different approaches to balance?

(Re: Everway) I expend lots of energy in my persuit of being a "fair" GM so that these people have a good time, and I try and give everyone spotlight time, but in the few games that went sour, it was more about spotlight time.

A big personality player demanding more time, a timid player looking bored but not really offering me anything to work with.

To me, this is a classic case where it is helpful to recognize that not everyone is looking for the same thing (i.e. all just spotlight time). It could well be that the timid player would be very pleased to have #3 -- i.e. expressed coolness without being shoved into the spotlight for a long time or put on the spot for creative input. In the meantime, the big personality player might be fine with getting #2.

I was unclear, the Big personality and the timid player were two different situations.  And I do agree that timid players can enjoy a sense of voyeuristic roleplay watching rather than doing, but the timid player was bored.  As the GM trying to instill a sense of Balance I felt like I wasn't doing my job because he was bored

1) The player's PC is away for most of the session's adventure, and never on-screen. However, the player quietly kibbitzes a lot (i.e. makes out-of-character suggestions) and other people enact her ideas.

2) As I mentioned, the player's PC could be put through some carefully-controlled conditions which he has no control over. For example, a player might have set up his PC to be struck by tragedy. When it hits, the PC is chased down, captured, and tortured. The villain makes long speeches at him during the interrogation, and threatens his loved ones, etc. -- which obviously the PC hates but the player is thrilled by. So the PC is on stage a lot, and is frequently mentioned and available for comment -- but the player has very little input on the events. This may be popular with players who are very social, but don't feel skilled at role-playing.

3) The character being cool has nothing to do with control or input by the player. i.e. The GM might just describe how various NPCs look in awe at the PC at some key points. I've seen a number of players who don't actually want much input or spotlight time, but are extremely pleased if their character shines during brief moments. It is usually a shy type.

4) Even within combat, effectiveness is not the same as spotlight time. This is particularly true if the PC has a combat power that is very simple and quick to resolve and doesn't take much choice or description. So the PC always does more damage than the others, but the other PCs might be doing the more colorful actions and/or actions with more choices and complexity. There are some math-oriented but shy types who appreciate this as well.

I disagree that expanded point three is not about Input.  At some point the player had to offer input about what they thought was cool or all the Gm's effort would be wasted on the player,  The Gm might have thought the description of the battle was cool but if that’s not the kind of thing "shy" player thought was cool then the GM was just entertaining himself.

Also points 2 and 3 put the burden of enjoyable play squarely on the shoulder of the gm.  A Good GM can evoke a sense of balance no matter what the game, but is it really a good idea for designers rely on the GMs sense of balance?

If spotlight time and Creative Input are different things (which I've come to understand they are)  The same shy player who is uncomfortable in the spotlight, would welcome opportunities that engage their creative Input in meaningful ways.

as to point 4.
I'm not convinced that Combat Balance is necessary If Creative Input is balanced.  Point four seems to me to be saying that if there is enough room for creative Input in the system then the combat mechanic don't have to be balanced because characters with inferior combat abilities can express more Creative Input while players who are shy can shield them selves behind a heavy combat character and express their Creative Input whenever they are in compat and their character gets to have an impact on the situation through massive damage.

Also I'm thinking that Creative Input = Impact on play.

Meaning I can be out of the scene and share an idea that would be cool or interesting and it gets put into play, I've just had Creative Input because what I said had Impact on play.

I can create a tough Character with lots of power and while I don't really talk much and stand back in the shadows a lot (me describing the "my guy is standing in the shadows" is creative Input) when Combat happens and I get to step up, my action have Impact- also Creative Input, yes?.

[M. J. Young]

The point I was trying to make (in admittedly vague terms) is that a system should give players equal opportunity to participate the CA.

That is extremely well said and right on point. I really think that covers the question.

Welcome to The Forge, Oliver.

--M. J. Young

[John Kim]

As far as  Balance as a design goal; I think that Balance should be considered and accepted or rejected with purpose.  To design a game with out considering Balance leads to unpolished products and gripes about "needed more play testing"  However a well designed game may be unbalanced with good reason.

Well, yeah.  I thought of this as kind of obvious, but obvious things still need to be said.  

I concede that Spotlight doesn't equal balance.  

Would Creative Input work instead?

Do different CAs need different approaches to balance?

I don't think so.  I think that even within, say, a Gamist game -- there may be different approaches to balance.  One game might consider character creation to be part of the challenge.  Thus, if a player messes up his character, that's fair game.  Another Gamist game might be concerned with keeping up spotlight balance so that less-skilled players still feel in the game even when it is clear that they are lagging far being the more-skilled players.  

Similarly, some Narrativist games might try to make an ensemble cast of characters -- while others might have a central character with all the spotlight time, giving other players other opportunities for creative input.  

I disagree that expanded point three is not about Input.  At some point the player had to offer input about what they thought was cool or all the Gm's effort would be wasted on the player,  The Gm might have thought the description of the battle was cool but if that's not the kind of thing "shy" player thought was cool then the GM was just entertaining himself.

Also points 2 and 3 put the burden of enjoyable play squarely on the shoulder of the gm.  A Good GM can evoke a sense of balance no matter what the game, but is it really a good idea for designers rely on the GMs sense of balance?

Well, #3 (PC coolness) may require some sort of communication or feedback -- but doesn't require input on the SIS from the player during the game.  It could be done by the player doing pre-game selection of what coolness she enjoys; or it could even be that completely outside of the game the GM learned what the player enjoys.  

As for dependence on the GM in #2 (PC spotlight time) and #3 (PC coolness)  -- in my examples I didn't mention the system, but I think the system can potentially do a lot to facilitate these.  Arranging different niches for the PCs is a way of balancing spotlight time, for example.  Some niches give actual play time, while others just give a brief moment to shine (i.e. coolness).  The thief in original AD&D was a class that had some coolness but little spotlight time.  i.e. The group often wanted a thief to deal with traps, but doing so was just a momentary single roll for the thief.  

As another example, one potential weakness of systems with only player-defined traits is that they have no niche protection.  The system generally rewards the player making each trait as broad as possible, so it's something of a test of what you can talk the GM into.  With all the PCs broad and overlapping, the most extroverted and/or skillful player can often dominate the others.  

Some games try to address this by separating the PCs and giving each equal scenes, but that makes the game more like a bunch of one-on-one interactions with the GM.  

To my mind, a potential problem for systems without balanced character creation is lack of variety among the PCs.  i.e. Suppose in a class-based system, there is a set of super-classes which are much better than the normal classes.  Now, this isn't inherently unfair to any player, because any player is capable of taking a super-class.  And some groups of players may be fine with this, if you have enough players interested in taking on the lesser classes.  But it is possible that no one really wants the lesser classes and the lack of variety in the game may feel dull and/or stifling.  

Another potential problem is the "gotcha" -- i.e. a character choice which turns out to be weaker than it looked.  Actually, I would say any choice not being what it looks is likely to be a problem.  

Also I'm thinking that Creative Input = Impact on play.

Meaning I can be out of the scene and share an idea that would be cool or interesting and it gets put into play, I've just had Creative Input because what I said had Impact on play.

I can create a tough Character with lots of power and while I don't really talk much and stand back in the shadows a lot (me describing the "my guy is standing in the shadows" is creative Input) when Combat happens and I get to step up, my action have Impact- also Creative Input, yes?.

Not necessarily.  The original AD&D fighter is a good example of this.  Often (depending on magic item distribution), a fighter would have a single clearly best attack.  This meant that there was darn little choice involved -- each turn the fighter just does the same thing.  The character is having impact through massive damage, but the player has no creative input.  This is notable in comparison to a comparable high-level spellcaster, who had lots of room for creative choices.

[Domhnall]

OK...  I think the easiest way to do this is for me just to describe our gaming paradigm, and then ask the Forge veterans which categories (of yours) that I fit into (if it is just one).  

Here are our basics:  We agree that players should be given equal shares of the attention (spotlighting) in play.  To accomplish this from the beginning it is the responsibility of the GM to create tales (major arc and subplots) that entwine each PC.  As the game progresses the different skills of the PCs keep them alive and succeeding in their goals, and the tales involve the PCs so that each remains (ideally) equally involved.  

But, we also hate the feeling of "contrivance", which seems to be what I am hearing many say is acceptable and useful.  What I mean is an instance in the game when it looks like the GM is "making up" reasons for a particular PC to become suddenly very useful.  Now I can hear the roar of objection that "it is all made up!" already.  So, I must relay our group's high expectation (and need) of plausibility.  I agree that the tale/campaign is "made up" if you mean "created".  But the type of gaming that is plausible is the type that is most immersive, and therefore deeply enjoyable (at the very least to our group).

Perhaps this relates to our group's very strong need for PC free-will, and honest cause and effect.  All of us hate the feeling that PCs are being led around by the nose.  We hate the idea that the GM would "tweak" a scenario to make it the case for a player to be (implausibly) more useful than he actually is.  Our group wants to feel that from the word "go" that their actions are being handled with strict fairness and that the GM didn't "fudge" either scenarios or results to make a character inconsistently useful just to spread around time in the spotlight.  

This differs from the way good literature is written.  There, the author controls everything.  If he writes his tale well then the skills of each character do not need to equal out ("weak" Frodo can succeed via unplanable twists of Fate where all others would have failed [as part of JRRT's narrative]).  But in gaming, the will of each player must be taken into consideration.  We hate the "Illusion" of free-will, and reject GMs trying to fool a player into thinking that some "suddenly unique need" existed that only that PC could fulfill if it felt artificial (that is, highly improbable).  Conversely, we would hate it if a character of great skill were inhibited by GM directorial intervention merely to "spread around" the light.  (EG, a GM directs a player who could effortlessly slay the 5 orcs attacking them to "take it easy" on them so that the others have a chance to shine.)

And so, this brings me back to my systemic balancing issue.  With the above stipulations of Free-Will, Causes-Effect, Plausibility, "hands-off" GMing, etc., character ability-equality seems to be required to plausibly "share the light".  

Now, I am not talking about the tale which the PCs are involved in WRT equal attention.  That part of the equality is the task of the GM from the time he created the story and integrated each PC into it.  And the PCs dialogue with each other naturally and have equal time there.  But, when it comes time for action if one character is far weaker than the others, the "weak" one is left out of the equality unless the GM intervenes in ways that some of you have described.  

I am sure that my group is not a "gamist" one.  We're not there to Powergame, or even just to "win".  We love immersively playing our characters consistently.  What we hate is the feeling of "GM intrusion" (for any reason), which steps on our free-will toes, or which damages the plausibility of the tale.  

All of that being said, A) what Forge categories am I describing, and B) taking our presuppositions of gaming (our Social Contract), am I right that systemic character balance must be preserved?  
   
Thanks.

[Callan S.]

Players are often forced to use these powers, or suffer in game penalties, because these powers are part of the tactical matrix of the game.

Well, I think that some-but-not-all players actually find this more helpful, in the way that structured activities tend to make it easier for some people to contribute to anything, whether it's a debate or a party or a perfomance or whatever. I do know gamers who have a hard time contributing to the SIS sometimes, but are perfectly happy to do so when it's their "turn."

True, but if you haven't designed in any other option, they don't have much choice in the matter. You don't have that as part of your design, but I'll be subversive and suggest that many players are just happy with their turn, because that's all they think is possible.

[Callan S.]

Hi Daniel,

It just sounds like you hate illusionism.

Can I sound you out on something? Do the following seem different?

GM "Uh, Grimwald the super fighter can't quite get to the five orks, so the other guys will have to have the limelight on this fight"

Vs.

Player A "I spend five director stance points so Grimwald can't get into this fight because of (insert extremely plausible description from player)."
Player B (owner of Grimwald) "That sounds reasonable, I wont counter that with my own director stance points"

[James Holloway]

I'll be subversive and suggest that many players are just happy with their turn, because that's all they think is possible.

Well, not I said "some but not all," not even "most." I'm just saying that I think a lot of the cross-talk going on here is because people are projecting their own groups' expectations onto others. I applaud Daniel's most recent post, in which he talks about the specific needs of his particular group.

Speaking of which:

Can I sound you out on something? Do the following seem different?

GM "Uh, Grimwald the super fighter can't quite get to the five orks, so the other guys will have to have the limelight on this fight"

Vs.

Player A "I spend five director stance points so Grimwald can't get into this fight because of (insert extremely plausible description from player)."
Player B (owner of Grimwald) "That sounds reasonable, I wont counter that with my own director stance points"

If I read Daniel and his group right, they would find this mechanic very intrusive indeed. They sound like classic dyed-in-the-wool immersionist Simulationists. To quote Ron:

what matters is that within the system, causality is clear, handled without metagame intrusion and without confusion on anyone's part.

Now, adding the desire for equal character input, I have to say, Daniel, this is a toughie. The problem is that character design has to be supported by and supporting of the GM's campaign structure (and it sounds to me like the GM has a heck of a lot of responsibility in your group) in order for this to work, but I don't know how much that's taken into consideration in your character design. Niche protection will be big, of course, but other aspects come into it too. If you're willing to accept some periods of idleness for a game that makes characters roughly equivalent in the long term, you might do OK -- "well, I can't do anything here because all this underworld stuff is really Jim's forte, but wait until we can get back to the lab and I can start work!"

I think that demanding plausibility/realism/naturalism/whatever on the GM's part is very tricky in games like this, because in a lot of published games of this type the poor devil is expected never to mess up game-world causality or accuracy as well as to juggle character spotlight/power time and is given precious little support to do it, particularly in games where the players are working from within their characters, if you like. I've heard this conversation a hundred times.

"My character hasn't got enough to do!"
"Your character's an art dealer; it's not very exciting."
"I'm just playing my character. The rest is your job."

In terms of designing your game, I recommend that you spell out areas of possible character effectiveness: the social guy, the magic guy, the tough guy, the detective, etc. However, I suspect that this might be anathema to your "the world is real; anything can happen" way of thinking.

For an example of a game in which characters can be all kinds of different oddballs, designed firmly within a Simulationist perspective, check out Unknown Armies 2nd ed. Note in particular how it talks a lot about campaign structure in order to make sure that each of these oddballs has something to do. If you've played it or participated in its fan community, you'll see that it's not always successful, but it might have a couple of interesting lessons for you.

[Callan S.]

Well, not I said "some but not all," not even "most." I'm just saying that I think a lot of the cross-talk going on here is because people are projecting their own groups' expectations onto others. I applaud Daniel's most recent post, in which he talks about the specific needs of his particular group.

I think were basically saying the same thing though. I'm saying it's often people only giving a player their turn, as part of design, because that's what all the other designs did. It's projecting expectations on to others.

I'm inclined to think that if you give a player director powers without their being tactically important to use in game, then that player can just let them rust if he wishes and just be content with his turn. The same thing as "I just get my turn" but it leaves open some options.

If I read Daniel and his group right, they would find this mechanic very intrusive indeed. They sound like classic dyed-in-the-wool immersionist Simulationists.

I think they enjoy sim, too. But my question was whether those two things felt different. If that came down to 'I hate both but for very different reasons' that's cool.

I'm interested in reading what he thinks, because I think:

Player A "I spend five director stance points so Grimwald can't get into this fight because of (insert extremely plausible description from player)."
Player B (owner of Grimwald) "That sounds reasonable, I wont counter that with my own director stance points"

Is exactly the same as

Player A "I spend five tactics points my tactics skill gives me, which means Grimwald can't get into this fight ahead of us as described in the skill."
Player B (owner of Grimwald) "Grimwald wouldn't use his 'run in bezerk!' to counter that, at the moment, because it wouldn't suit him."

Except that the latter has tactical considerations no doubt, which means your not really free to use them in a directorial way to get equal spotlight.

And on a side point, although pushing expectations onto others is a bad thing, immersionist play has a tendancy to kill off real life communication between players. While we should support others play styles, I see immersionist play as being self destructive to itself, the deeper the immersion sought. If any help is asked for with such a play style, what can you offer but to push expectations that don't revolve around self distructive play?
PS: Only refering to immersion that starts killing off RL communication, as destructive.

[Domhnall]

Hi Daniel,
It just sounds like you hate illusionism.
Can I sound you out on something? Do the following seem different?

GM "Uh, Grimwald the super fighter can't quite get to the five orks, so the other guys will have to have the limelight on this fight"
-Vs.
Player A "I spend five director stance points so Grimwald can't get into this fight because of (insert extremely plausible description from player)."
Player B (owner of Grimwald) "That sounds reasonable, I wont counter that with my own director stance points"

In the 1st instance, I assume you mean that the character was physically away from the fight in order to get there in time, yes?  Then, yes, they feel very different, and my group would hate the latter [metagame?] "impositions" (as we would interpret them).  

But, I have spent a long while reading all 4 pages of this thread, looking up terms where I could find them, and trying to see into the structures described.  My present conclusion is that neither path towards "equality" (Player-spotlight) necessarily falls into either the Gamist or Simulationist camp.  Both structures want each player to have equal joy in the game... one tries to accommodate that equality before play (with skill/class equality), the other during play (with "directorial power"[?]).  

Yes, a lot of work is necessary for the GM.  But, this has always been expected.  And I do not see how our structure would work any other way.  

I'm reading Ron's Sim essay now, and yes, it looks like us.  

And on a side point, although pushing expectations onto others is a bad thing, immersionist play has a tendancy to kill off real life communication between players. While we should support others play styles, I see immersionist play as being self destructive to itself, the deeper the immersion sought. If any help is asked for with such a play style, what can you offer but to push expectations that don't revolve around self distructive play?
PS: Only refering to immersion that starts killing off RL communication, as destructive.

"Real life communication"?  Would you expound on all of this?

Thanks.

[James Holloway]

Yes, a lot of work is necessary for the GM.  But, this has always been expected.  And I do not see how our structure would work any other way.

Well, I think there is actually a way to simplify things a little. What you want is for the GM to:

a) ensure equality of player contribution
b) with strict regard for in-game causality and PC "free will"
c) in such a way that the players never notice.

Impossible, I think, without either:

1) very strict GM or "system" control over character creation, or
2) active player participation in the process of creating the character *group.*

Or, if you like, not engaging full Sim-immersionist-what-have-you priorities until after character creation has been set up. I think you either need to do that or to recognize that at times you're going to have some characters out of the limelight for a bit.

1), incidentally, is how I've always done it, and although it is a bit of extra work, it does save time once the game gets going. But it took me a long time and lots of disappointed players (including myself) to get the hang of it.

From the point of view of the game you seem to be trying to create, Daniel, I think that the best way to achieve your goal is to put a lot of emphasis in your game on character creation not as a set of rules necessarily, but as a process in which the GM and all the other players participate actively to ensure that everyone gets a chance to participate fully in the Dream. Get that under control, and I think you can do a), b) and c) without knocking over too much of the furniture.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi folks,

It's time for this thread to be closed and for the very fruitful sub-topics to be taken to their own, new threads for more focused discussion.

Best,
Ron