A note on Balance

[Marco]

On the playing of niche-poor characters:

   
I wish. I've suffered both types of inequality on both sides of the screen. You can take it on yourself all you want in either role: if the system cuts you off at the knee, it's mod city or don't play thieves.

I'm saying that the system has to make sure that thieves are good at being theives (that it gives them a range of abilities that are hypothetically useful, that it doesn't make them complete soapbubbles in combat or have nothing to contribute to other areas of the game, etc.)

But after that, it's, IME, up to the GM (or the players if the game is player-driven) to come up with thief-stuff (or whatever-stuff) to do in the game. If the GM never puts locked doors, traps, or climbable walls in the dungeon--has all attacks be head on with no opportunity for backstabbing--and doesn't ever include thief-type treasure then it doesn't matter if the system makes you the best thief in the world.

Your niche has nothing to do in the game.

That's where I was saying the people (traditionally the GM mostly) come into the picture).

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

It is not limited to the power to actualize decisions according to your creative agenda. It is the oportunity to do so that is relevant.

This is precisely what I'm talking about. That is, "power" means opportunity. I'm using the term as it appears in discussions of System (in the technical sense used here on The Forge, not meaning game rules), Authority, SIS, etc. Player power, not character power. Put another way, balance is the player having authority because of the System used, to create the sorts of effects that they need to in order to be playing in their chosen Creative Agenda.

"Time" is sort of a MacGuffin, again. That is, if you don't have Authority, then even if the character is displayed, you're not getting what you need. Authority implies that at some point you'll be able to interject with your ability to create, that you'll have "time". That usually means that your character is "on screen" in most games, but it doesn't have to mean that at all. For instance, for the GM, this is only occasionally the source of his power. Much of the time, the GM interjects with things like what color the inn is painted. In some games, players do this too.

The point is that it's having the authority to speak up and say something and have it recognized as part of the SIS. If some player has far more power to do this sort of thing than you do, then the game is "unbalanced."

Mike

P.S. Marco, according to the Lumpley principle, what you're describing is System. That is, the GM deciding what to put out there for characters to encounter is very much system. Yes, as usual the GM is the most important cog, but only part of the system overall that includes the Rules. You can see this is just System Does Matter, all over again.

[PlotDevice]

Hello Mike.

OK, I'll accept power.

Regarding on-time, I'll accept your point about it being intrinsic and superseeded by the power to actualize your CA.

But I don't think you have addressed my point that limiting the concept of balance to only CA relevant game issues is too restrictive.

Anecdote: In game I ran (gurps) all the characters were written with 150 points, then got given super powers, that the players wrote up. All the players had different amounts of points to spend on powers: One had 100, another had 350, and one had 25,000. The game play was balanced, because the game operated on different levels, with the mega super dealing with the big problems, and the minor supers dealing with the microcosm problems and the details. The mega super was limited in what they could manage on a social level. BUT the game fell apart after 3 months because one player was not pulling their weight in writing up the session logs, which they had agreed to do at the start. So the inequity crept in but it had nothing to do with the CA of the players...

Warm regards
Evan

[Mike Holmes]

You were right to question my use of the term power. Given that it usually refers to character power, I was bing confusing, potentially (in fact, use of power in that way is far from accepted). So thanks for making me straighten that out.

Anyhow, I'm not seeing what you're saying in your example. If you're saying that power balance isn't required for all types of play, then I'm right with you. If you're saying that character power balance was a problem in this game, then I'm right with you again. Character power balance is required for some CAs, and not for others.  Character power in these CAs is the ability to make decsions that affect the strategy of the game. In fact, this sort of analysis is one of the strongest in terms of determining CA. That is, if, for instance, the problem was that you were trying to play with narrativism primarily, then the power balance problem would be moot. But if one player found that he didn't like the lack of gamism support, then that could explain why the game fell apart. I'm not saying that's what happened in this circumstance, but it's the sort of analysis that's possible.

To look at your examples of other possibilities in detail.

-"On" time: that is, how much of the time are you playing, and how much are you waiting for your turn. (Turn Balance)

This is power, like I said. That is, some agent in the game (often the GM, but not neccessarily so) is authorizing the player to make changes with their character. In Universalis, for instance, this is all handled by Coins. That is, anyone can interject at any time with anything as long as they can afford to do so. What they do with this time during which they are authorized will be reflective of the CA. Or, put another way, if they're given "time" but not any actual authority to do anything with it with regards to their CA, it's not balancing. Again, consider the case of the player who's character is put on the stage, and then the GM railroads him into certain decisions. Either this is "time" which is not balanced, or it's not "time" at all. In any case, the question is, as with all railroading, whether or not the player was allowed to make the sort of decisions that they want to make during play.

-Starting block: which is that all players are on the same starting block at the begining and have the same oportunities to actualize a play strategy. (Chargen Balance)

Again, this is empowering the player, through the character to make decisions that have an actual impact on the SIS, through the vehicle of the character. A player wanting Gamism will want his character to be as powerful as those of others, so that their decisions on what to do will have the same tactical weight. Players wanting narrativism will want their characters to be a mechanically interesting in terms of what themes can be created with those mechanisms. Etc.

-Player role: which is the external needs of the game (providing food, playspace, transport, being the GM or Player (or caller!)) (Game Support Balance)

This is, I agree, outside CA, but this is beyond the scope of the game. This is the social contract layer. I'm not aware of any RPG or system where who feeds who is addressed. Issues of being a GM or caller, are precisely about what player has the power to create what, and when. In point of fact, these designations are all about setting up satisfactory "unbalances" in play which aid the game in other ways. But in all cases, what the positions allow will directly affect the CA. In fact, the power splits here are oft discussed in terms of CA (the consensus is that none is particularly better than another for any CA, but that there are better designs and worse for each combination).

Mike

[Precious Villain]

I think Evan's example demonstrates a fundamental problem for designers who want to prevent balance issues from arising in their games.  Balance problems (as in ability to influence the SIS in a CA-appropriate fashion) can be papered over by the social contract of a given group.  Worse yet, they can appear to be present (with an inattentive/inexpert player) when they really aren't.

It's a lot like whitewater rafting or canoeing.  The balance problems are rocks, but when you are rafting you can only see rocks that stick up out of the water.  The rocks just under the water make waves that you can see, but not every wave hides a rock and face it, not all rocks make waves you'll notice either.  Basically, you could be in for a bumpy ride at any time.  

Think of it as disenfranchisement uncertainty.  You can't tell whether or not a given limitation on a character will disenfranchise that character's player unless you know the creative agenda AND the social contract.  The only way to work around it that I can think of is to state up front what you're doing (lots of designer's notes).  If the wizards (or whatever) in your game will be weak in a certain situation step up and say so.  That way people know what they're getting into and can plan their choices around it.

Take the thieves in AD&D.  With a gamist creative agenda and a social contract that calls for each player to have roughly equal impact on the things that matter (combat, traps and so forth), it's pretty obvious that anyone playing a thief is in for a rough time at high level.  But nowhere in the AD&D rules or dungeonmaster's guide does anybody come out and SAY that.  I don't think that's because AD&D was primitive, or that Gygax or Cook were lousy designers.  I think it's because it's only a problem in CERTAIN GROUPs.  It doesn't matter to everyone that the Thief can be sidestepped at high levels, so it's not really a system problem.  It's a user problem.

[Doplegager]

I think that Precious Villian really hits it on the head.  So far, we've sub-divided game balance issues into various categories.  The only problem is that, in practice, game balance is just as dependent on the group as it is on the system.  You can embellish theory to the point of absurdity; in the end, some groups will be able to unbalance even the most 'balanced' systems.  IME, the reverse is equally true.

So, I would pose a supplemental question: in addition to explaining how to balance a system, what are your objectives for balancing it?  Consider the spectrum between groups that can unbalance any system and the groups that can balance almost any system; where do you intend for your balance efforts to have the greatest impact?

It might seem like a silly question, but I bet that there is more diversity than one might think.  IMO this is one of those important issues that pops up in individual responses but is never formally discussed.  I could be wrong.

I try to structure my games to minimize abuse to a certain degree, but I'm usually more interested in using balance to supplement the enjoyment of more mature gamers.  Whether gamist or narrativist, I try to make sure that my rules allow variety.  Some rules might be argued to disrupt balance, but IME, the rules work just fine for the target audience.

I would argue that unless the specific goal of the system is to do everything possible to minimize abuse (best noted in the d20 system and other intentionally newbie friendly systems), any kind of quantitative system balance plays second fiddle to the reinforcement of the game's creative focus.

[Mike Holmes]

I don't disagree that balance problems can occur because of the people playing. As a designer, the only thing you can do, however, about this, is to make the rules as little prone to this as possible. This is a standard rebuttal to System Does Matter that gets made all of the time. That people also matter. Well, they do, you just can't affect that with your design. Or, rather, you can only affect play via the system that you present, so the only advice one can give is to do as good a job with the system as possible (and, I guess, take into account that the players are fallible humans).

Anyhow, as far as objectives, this is what Creative Agenda is all about. It sounds to me like you're saying, Doplegager, that one should understand what sort of play the game should encourage, and make sure that the player is empowered to have fun in that mode. I couldn't agree more.

Further, it's nigh axiomatic (but always worth repeating, I suppose) that one shouldn't try to prevent abuse, but instead present a effective vision of how to play. Again, you can't really prevent abuse, you have to trust to the players to want to play the game. And if you give them a good vision of how to have fun with it, they'll be less likely to feel the need to abuse the game anyhow.

Interestingly, this applies to "newbie" games as well - the fact that people see new players as needing to be reigned in is a function of the fact that the games in question do not provide that vision, often, and so players have to be hammered into a single vision by the more "experienced" players. Give a new player a game that supports the vision in question and the problem never occurs in the first place.

Mike

[PlotDevice]

Just clarifying:

Mike said: "This is, I agree, outside CA, but this is beyond the scope of the game. This is the social contract layer. "

May be, but not beyond the scope of the concept of balance, IMO.

Mike also said: "I don't disagree that balance problems can occur because of the people playing. As a designer, the only thing you can do, however, about this, is to make the rules as little prone to this as possible. "

So, Mike, is your take on the concept of balance that it needs be defined as inclusive of the game contract layer or not, for the puposes of this excercise? The argument here is specifically about the concept of balance I thought, which I see as one that needs to be as broad as possible to encompass the layers in which inequity can occur... or are we trying to limit the concept of balance to only what can be writen into the game mechanics?

Evan

[Mike Holmes]

Well, there's balance, and game balance. I'm not saying that social balance doesn't exist. Social balance seems to me to be somewhat outside of the scope of game discussions. That is, unless you can make it pertain to RPGs, then I'm not sure how it's germane to this site. I'm not saying you can't make it pertinent, just that I'm not seeing it right now.

Further, I may be glossing it over, but wouldn't just saying "play fair" cover it about as well as possible? We're taught from day one how to be social properly - if one isn't, then that's nothing we can fix here. If one doesn't want to be social, that's not something we can deal with here.

I may be missing something.

From a design POV, all you can effect is how your game affects balance, and as such the discussion of that angle has to ignore the social part of things and remain firmly on how the game itself can affect balance. I think that from this POV that the designer has to assume that the players are "playing fair" about as well as the average person does.

Mike

[PlotDevice]

I have seen systems where the social contract is included in the game mechanics. Where there are in-game rewards for game supportive out of game activities.

Some examples: the rewarding of Game Masters of a LARP by allowing them to play characters with greater plot import and power than others, The awarding of experience (et al) to people that come to a game in costume or provide props, or character portraits, or venue, or food etc...

In the extreme, the GM rewarding his girlfriend can be seen as an element of this, which fits into your fair play concept, and may be what you are aiming at here, but I think we cannot ignore the ability of game mechanics to influence and work on the social contract layer if we are considering balance.

In most games, it is irrelevant. In LARP I think it is much more relevant because there are so many more material concerns that need to be logistically managed, and reward in game is a method of ensuring it...

Evan

[Doplegager]

My main concern was that many of the discussions that I've been a part of on the topic of system balance have been strongly influenced by the d20 system.  It may be coincidence, but, IME, it seems like an after-effect of the d20 system is that balance, unfortunately, tends to be viewed as a kind of attempt at an airt-tight or fool-proof system.  I would argue that this is appropriate for some games; one of the charms of the d20 system is that it is run in a relatively consistent manner no matter where you are.  For other games, even ones with a strong gamist focus where system elements can 'easily' be measured quantitatively, I would argue that it is far less appropriate.

Further, it's nigh axiomatic (but always worth repeating, I suppose) that one shouldn't try to prevent abuse, but instead present a effective vision of how to play. Again, you can't really prevent abuse, you have to trust to the players to want to play the game.

The arguement that I would present is that systems such as d20, possibly even GURPS, do use balance to prevent abuse.  IMO, in the context of relatively generic and mainstream systems, balance often is more about preventing 'power-gaming' than it is about empowering players (which is not to imply that preventing power-gaming and empowering specific CAs are mutually exclusive goals).  IME, one of the joys of working on independent material is that my focus is more on targeting a specific audience and CA than on regulating how my work is used.

hmm.  I think that some types of system balance do have implications on the social contract.  If a system relies on characters to have specific niches where their importance can't be threatened, then, IMO, a large part of the balance is derived from mutual dependence.  If the characters are mutually dependent, then, in the context of the game, so are the players.  If the players are using the CA the system is designed for, it may be arguable that the system affects the social contract.

[Mike Holmes]

Plot Device, you sorta caught me there. In fact, I actually posted a set of add-on rules for Universalis to the website that do precisely the sort of things that you're talking about.

Still, I'm not sure that this is related to balance. That is, it's a reward system, but it seems to me that the only thing you can say about balance in this regard is that it should be applied equally to each participant. Rather, is there  some way a system like this could become unbalanced? Other than GM failure?


Doppleganger - actually the theory around here considers D20 to be just another system. Hence my definition by CA. In any case, I completely agree that much of the "balance" rules in GURPS and D&D are to prevent abuse. And I think that they're very bad rules. Basically they don't work, or aren't neccessary, or do work but cause unneccessary pain for players.

But your point is valid. That is, yes, some games have this sort of "balance." But it's still intended to create CA. That is, it does so negatively, by penalizing playing in the other CAs. So, to refine my definition:

Balance refers to rules intended to create a CA by either empowering a player to play in that CA, or disempowering them to play in another.

That avoids being judgemental, but if I were to be, I'd add: the latter method being problematic.

System does affect social contract, or, rather, it's a specialized extension of the social contract, according to The Big Theory. This is the part you can affect. All I've said you can't affect with system is how well the players get along and the like. Those things that are social contract, but not the game per se. Put another way, the dynamics that would still exist if the game did not. This is what the game can't try to control.

Mike

[Sean]

Since I started the thread, I guess I'd just like to say that I agree with Mike's last post overall, with one slight caveat: I think balance is a particular kind of empowerment or facilitation of playing with a particular CA - particularly, the kind that relates to giving all 'standard' players of the game relatively equal access to meaningful participation. It's the distribution of empowerment etc. where balance comes in. I'm not sure how different this is from what Mike's saying, actually, but I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents on it.

The first bad thing that often happens is when something that makes sense for facilitating roughly equal distribution of meaningful input in a Gamist CA (wanting all the players to have roughly equally meaningful powers to deal with a situation, assuming roughly equal intelligence and competence, etc.) is applied haphazardly to e.g. a Sim or Nar rules-set, where it might not matter at all. For that matter, it might not even matter in a different Gamist rules-set: what mattered for instance in the 'Theives' Guild' D&D variant was roughly equal meaningful input into larcenous situations, with combat ability only being one small subset of that. To figure out what balance means for your game it's absolutely critical to figure out what your game is about, which means not just or even primarily the imaginative content, but what you expect players to actually be doing during a session of that game.

The second bad thing that often happens is when 'balance' as a whole, roughly equal distribution of meaningful input between the players relative to the game's CA, is confused with balance relative to some particular conflict-type or set of techniques employed within the game.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Sean, I'm seeing a lot of overlap, maybe even identity, between your "balance" and my "coherence." That's not a criticism, merely an observation that I hope is thought-provoking to people.

Best,
Ron

[Sean]

Ron - 'Boink' moment delivered - thanks! I agree - maybe 'the aspect of coherence relating particularly to distribution of meaningful input across the table', though whether that can be separated that meaningfully from coherence-in-general is questionable. (Hence my choice of 'aspect'.)

Sympathy also offered, if perhaps, sometime many years ago, you had a thought process like this: "There are issues relating to 'balance' that are important, but the word is such a landmine among gamers and used so ambiguously that it would be better to start over with a new technical term - like 'coherence'!" Then, that done, you proceeded to distinguish between 'coherent' and 'incoherent' game systems, and people came to your writings only to be horrified that they're being accused of incoherent behavior, or writing games that make no sense at all on any level, or the like.

I run into this all the time in my professional life. The thankless work of the theorist...