"Balance", "Fairness" ?

[Callan S.]

Heya
Or... it might be better stated that Fairness/Balance of Character/Equality/Whatever is really a desire to insure that all characters (and their players) have equal access to the Creative Agenda.  A Gamist character should not prevent the player from Stepping Up.  A Simmulationist character should not ruin the Dream.  And a Narrativist character must deliver Story Now.  

I don't see that as being something different than directorial power. Perhaps I've read directors stance incorrectly.

[James Holloway]

I don't see that as being something different than directorial power. Perhaps I've read directors stance incorrectly.

Any given stance is a particular relationship between the player and the SIS. Director stance is not the only way in which characters can have access to the CA, it's just one possible way.

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

I don't see that as being something different than directorial power. Perhaps I've read directors stance incorrectly.

Any given stance is a particular relationship between the player and the SIS. Director stance is not the only way in which characters can have access to the CA, it's just one possible way.

James beat me to it, but yes.  That's how I see things as well.  :)

I just also want to add that this balance of character thing is just one way of doing things not THE way of doing things.  For some designers (and players) it is the ideal way.  For others, it would ruin the premise of thier game.  A lot of people talk about it because they might feel slighted by a game in the past or be search for the holy grail of designs or have a strong sense of fairness/equality or whatever.  IMHO, I think for a lot of games it would be good, but for some games it's not necessary.  It just depends on your design goals after all :)

Peace,

-Troy

[Mike Holmes]

I've seen this discussed in man places before.  I think it is a mistake to imagine that all Fairness/Balance issues are really a single underlying concern.  There are many different kinds of balance.  

CA isn't just one thing, John. It encompasses everything you mentioned. So I'm not seeing you arguing against what Troy said. He's just generalizing things such that your statement is automatically true.

Mike

[Callan S.]

I don't see that as being something different than directorial power. Perhaps I've read directors stance incorrectly.

Any given stance is a particular relationship between the player and the SIS. Director stance is not the only way in which characters can have access to the CA, it's just one possible way.

Which other ways? I mean purely at a rules level, which the designer can control, rather than at the higher/controlling social level over which he has no control.

[James Holloway]

I don't see that as being something different than directorial power. Perhaps I've read directors stance incorrectly.

Any given stance is a particular relationship between the player and the SIS. Director stance is not the only way in which characters can have access to the CA, it's just one possible way.

Which other ways? I mean purely at a rules level, which the designer can control, rather than at the higher/controlling social level over which he has no control.

Many players don't use director stance at all; they exert control over the SIS through their characters. This manifests as "balance" in, for example, character creation in traditional Gamist contexts; since the character is the tool the player will use to Step On Up, it's important that players be given an equal opportunity to do so -- not necessarily that they are all equally effective at doing so, but that the character is not denied the opportunity to engage with the CA.

[Callan S.]

In a game where you are granted no direct directorial power, the only way you can direct the game is through your characters powers.

I think were in agreement.

Ie, you have directorial powers equal to your characters powers.

I might have put this an odd way, perhaps instead: The closest you get to directorial power are your characters powers, thus your characters powers effectively are directorial powers (should you want to use them that way).

[James Holloway]

The closest you get to directorial power are your characters powers, thus your characters powers effectively are directorial powers (should you want to use them that way).

Yeah, OK -- I see what you mean. Makes sense to me!

[The God of the Machine]

Characters aren't directors, they're actors.  Look at a game session like an improv play with rules.  Every player has a role, some roles allow them considerable latitude and some don't.  But as they say, "there are no small roles, only small actors".  Show me some game other than DnD or other such gamist nonsense where a character was completely outshined by another solely because of statistics.  

I ain't buyin' it.

It's all in how you play your character, and the WAY you bend this artificial environment to YOUR imagination in YOUR terms.  The original poster was right, only some gamist choad would whine about the fact that his longsword isn't doing as much damage as that OTHER GUY'S longsword, then cry about it like a little bitch and go off somewhere to write a d20 supplement.  I say that artificial game balance is insulting of the public's intelligence.  I've played 2nd edition where everyone in my group was a min-maxed combat or magic GAWD with at least 6 levels on me, and I, a lowly little priest of time, stole the show.  Was it because I had ultra-powerful magic items or did an average of 34 pts. of damage a round?  No.  I had BACKSTORY, baby, and my character had a reason for being alive.  And most of our games revolved around my radiant sun thusly, and not because of any stupid statistics.

Game balance is a joke, because we're not all equal.  I don't care who you are, if you don't have the roleplaying skillz to pay mama's billz you won't hang in a game I'm in.  Might as well just give your character superpowers, dragon blood and a Staff of the Magi to even things out a bit.  Give me a normal human in a setting as ruthlessly stupid and power-gaming as Rifts: Phase World and I will have the multiverse screaming my name within a week.  Trust me gamists, your ass is mine.  Forever.

[Mike Holmes]

Welcome to the Forge Alex. Without digressing too much, I hope you've read the ettiquete posts at the top of the fora?

Anyhow, to the subject, yes, individual play will be different from player to player, I don't think anyone will disagree. But when designing a game, you have a choice. Do you strive for some sense of some sort of balance, or do you simply allow for these vagaries of player differences to mean that balance is not important to the design? I think it's not absurd to strive for balance, knowing that it may not help in particular cases, but that you've done what you can as a designer to help make play enjoyable for all of the participants.

Also, there are some forms of balance that you aren't addressing. What about the balance of options? What if the backstories from one sort of character are just more compelling than others? What I mean is what if you as the player who can make anything work, never try certain options because they're dull? Why put these in the game at all? No?

BTW, have you looked at the Articles link at the top of the page. You might be interested in some of the articles there, including especially "System Does Matter." Perhaps also some reading on stance theory would help you understand some off the discussion here.

Mike

[Marco]

Also, there are some forms of balance that you aren't addressing. What about the balance of options? What if the backstories from one sort of character are just more compelling than others? What I mean is what if you as the player who can make anything work, never try certain options because they're dull? Why put these in the game at all? No?

Mike

This is, of course, obviously true. It's also the case that in real life (TM) most decisions, especially most dramatic decisions, involve a trade-off of some sort and a calcuable risk. This is, in essence, a "balancing system" very similar to what RPG's approximate when 'balancing mechanics.' Even an abstract fidelity to this principle can correctly be termed "fairness."

While a trade-off/risk-to-benefit construction of options and methods may not be appropriate for every game or appropriate for every mechanic, it certainly is for some.

-Marco

[The God of the Machine]

Hi Mike.  As you might have already noticed I'm all over the etiquette, salad forks and all.  Emily Post ain't got nothin' on me.

When I talk about "balance", as I thought everyone so far has in a roundabout way in this post, I'm considering so-called "power-balance", namely having game designers put (sometimes arbitrary, sometimes well-reasoned) caps on certain types of characters because that character, by virtue of his being, will be more capable of doing something/s than the rest of the party.  Some of these balances were perfectly valid from a realism standpoint.  In 2e AD&D, the wizard at high levels was a tough sumbitch who would flatten states such as Iowa or Kansas even flatter than they already are with a few gestures and the phrase "Mordenkainen pwns j00!" muttered under the breath several times.  The game designers handled this dilemma quite nicely by reasoning that it's harder to become a good wizard than a good fighter or thief, for instance.  The designers thusly made it so gaining levels early on for wizards was pretty rough, and that at low levels wizards weren't able to do much more than cast the odd Magic Missile  and hide behind the mighty thews of Sir Zelkor Dragonsbreath or whoever the generic fighter of the party was.  This went perfectly well with the genre's own internal logic.  This is not the kind of "power-balance" that annoys me.

Saying that wizards were inherently weaker (in terms of hit points) and could, under no circumstances, learn how to pick up a sword and have a prayer of it hitting the paralyzed elephant that you're standing on just because they'd read a few books in their youth, now THAT'S the kind of "power-balance" that's plain dumb.  THIS is the kind of "balance" that is inherently Gamist in nature, because it appeals not to the Narrativists love of good drama nor to the Simulationists modeling of an artificial reality.  And THIS is the kind of balance that game designers even to this day sprinkle all over their systems to ward off whiny GenCon "scholars" rather than concentrating on making the best game of all time.

As far as your "balance of options", I might need some clarification and examples.  From what I gather, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're talking about characters being overshadowed by other characters by virtue of the game emphasizing one character over another.  I see this as a problem of picking the wrong character for the system or a problem with the GM.  I'll give a couple hypothetical examples.

Suppose your group decides to play V:tM, but during character creation one of the players hears that there are Werewolves and decides to be one of them.  Despite the GMs protestations, the player is adamant, so the player makes one of the big, walking dogs.  Turns out that a lot of the game is about vampire politics, taming the Beast inside and reaching Golconda, stuff like that.  The werewolf is bored because he has no part of any of that.  Also, the vampires sleep during the day, and if the werewolf wants to go off on his own during those hours and the GM is focused on what happens with the group during night play, the GM may be forced to make some improv, unsatisfying encounters which seem like schlock to the werewolf character, and which bore the vampire's players to death while they await sunset.

In this case, the dissenting player picked the wrong character for the system.  The play is geared toward a different kinda character, so unless the outsider can immerse himself in the other characters world and thrive in it, he will stay out of the spotlight and play/story arcs will be unbalanced against his character.  The moral of this story is, when in Rome, do as the Romans do and pick a Roman character, and if you don't and the sun for some inexplicable reason doesn't rise and set in the crack of your ass, you'll know why.

The other example is like this one, but the blame lies elsewhere.  Say you're playing any fantasy RPG and the GM tells the players to make any kinda character they want.  The players all get together and decide to make diplomatic/courtier characters with their forte being social interaction, all except one, the guy who got wedgied frequently in high school and decides he has to make a combat demon all the time or the bullies will get him.  Play starts and the GM, much to the chagrin of most of the characters, get thrown into combat encounter after combat encounter, eventually being pressured into forming a de facto mercenary unit.  Combat monster is ecstatic.  The bullies will never stuff him in a locker again.

In this case, the balance has shifted to one player, who through dumb luck made the right character for the game.  This is entirely the GM's fault, who should have either told his players what kind of game this was going to be, or should have seen what the players wanted in their choice of character and made the adventure to fit.  Moral of this story is that if your IQ is under 70, don't GM.

In ANY case, the point I'm trying to get at is that arbitrary "power-balancing" is the dumbest thing that has happened since time began, and that all other game-balance issues are avoidable, either through good play or good game-to-group fit.

And yes, I read the "System" essay, and while I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Edwards central thesis, that not all systems are created equal, I don't agree with some of his points.  Rifts and Shadowrun gamist?  Both can attract power-gamers at times, and while Shadowrun has an incredibly complex system and Rifts' system is just, well, broken, both have two of the finest settings (forgetting sourcebook-itis) in all of RPGdom, which firmly appeals to the Narrativist in me.

[Mike Holmes]

When I talk about "balance", as I thought everyone so far has in a roundabout way in this post, I'm considering so-called "power-balance", namely having game designers put (sometimes arbitrary, sometimes well-reasoned) caps on certain types of characters because that character, by virtue of his being, will be more capable of doing something/s than the rest of the party.

If you read back into the thread, in fact you'll find the perenial observation on balance. Namely that it can mean a whole lot of things, and that these things inter-relate in very complicated ways.

Saying that wizards were inherently weaker (in terms of hit points) and could, under no circumstances, learn how to pick up a sword and have a prayer of it hitting the paralyzed elephant that you're standing on just because they'd read a few books in their youth, now THAT'S the kind of "power-balance" that's plain dumb. THIS is the kind of "balance" that is inherently Gamist in nature, because it appeals not to the Narrativists love of good drama nor to the Simulationists modeling of an artificial reality.  And THIS is the kind of balance that game designers even to this day sprinkle all over their systems to ward off whiny GenCon "scholars" rather than concentrating on making the best game of all time.

Well, to some extent, I'd say that this is just a function of your play preferences. I'd personally agree with you that this sort of balance is not fun. But some people do like it. That's all I'll say there.

In any case, it's very much not what anyone here was specifically referring to. That is, the gamism balances that you seem to prefer are precisely what people were discussing for the most part.  

In ANY case, the point I'm trying to get at is that arbitrary "power-balancing" is the dumbest thing that has happened since time began, and that all other game-balance issues are avoidable, either through good play or good game-to-group fit.

Well, let's say somebody had a game which was, essentially Vampire and Werewolf mixed, but when you played the Werewolves, it sucked for the reasons you mention. Yes, you could blame the players or GM for not seeing it, but why not just have a game where either there are no werewolves, or where the werewolves are fun to play?

Again, the designer can't know what precise use the game will be put to, so there is a reason why to make all of the options aproximately equal in potential enjoyment. So at least the system isn't the culprit for the problem.

And yes, I read the "System" essay, and while I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Edwards central thesis, that not all systems are created equal, I don't agree with some of his points.  Rifts and Shadowrun gamist?  Both can attract power-gamers at times, and while Shadowrun has an incredibly complex system and Rifts' system is just, well, broken, both have two of the finest settings (forgetting sourcebook-itis) in all of RPGdom, which firmly appeals to the Narrativist in me.

We'd be going off topic to start discussing some of these these things here in depth (please start a new thread if you want to get into them). But what is on topic, what I was getting at is precisely that not all systems are created equal. Balance in this case is a discussion of what makes one game better than another because of design. If one Rifts OCC is way more powerful than another, for no particularly plausible reason, then you'd agree that it's broken? Why? Because there's a problem with balance in this particular use of the word.

Mike

[The God of the Machine]

As far as the wizard with the complete inability to hit anything with a sword ever...

In any case, it's very much not what anyone here was specifically referring to. That is, the gamism balances that you seem to prefer are precisely what people were discussing for the most part.

Look back a few posts to M.J.'s discussion of "niche protection", which I comfortably filed under "arbitrary play balancing".  The mage example is very much an outgrowth of "niche protection", and it was almost "very much what everyone here was specifically referring to".

Yes, you could blame the players or GM for not seeing it, but why not just have a game where either there are no werewolves, or where the werewolves are fun to play?

Again, the designer can't know what precise use the game will be put to, so there is a reason why to make all of the options aproximately equal in potential enjoyment. So at least the system isn't the culprit for the problem.

This seems kind of akin to talking about Ars Magica and asking why there's no support for playing cybernetic Martians in the rules.  Why?  Because the focus on the game is on magi, not Marvin the Mutilator.  A game system that would allow any character type into play would have to be a super-generic or super-surreal game.  Some games choose to be more specific than they have to just to fully flesh out the possibilities inherent in one character type, like Ars Magica or Monster: The Subtitle for instance.  Does this make the system broken?  No, specificity does not equal bad game design, just narrow focus.

I've seen Vampire games where Werewolves were fun to play.  This wasn't because the GM acceeded to the Wolf's every wish, it's because the Wolf MADE himself a part of the game.

Balance in this case is a discussion of what makes one game better than another because of design. If one Rifts OCC is way more powerful than another, for no particularly plausible reason, then you'd agree that it's broken? Why? Because there's a problem with balance in this particular use of the word.

Rifts is a game that's broken all over the place, and yes, character creation if one OCC was IMPLAUSABLY buffer than another would be another flaw in the system.  If it was implausible.  The system ain't broken because a Dragon Hatchling can stomp all over a Mystic of the same level.  That's what we would call "plausible", at least in terms of the game's own logic.  Artificially constraining the hatchling to make it on par with the Mystic would not be in keeping with the logic of the world, and thus would be arbitrary and stupid.  That breaks systems for me.

[Mike Holmes]

Look back a few posts to M.J.'s discussion of "niche protection", which I comfortably filed under "arbitrary play balancing".  The mage example is very much an outgrowth of "niche protection", and it was almost "very much what everyone here was specifically referring to".

It's one example of niche protection, yes, but there are others that don't fall under your classification. For example, in Rolemaster, you can have your wizard wield a sword, it just costs more, and has some penalties that are based on the setting's magical "physics." That, too is niche protection.

Basically you're saying that there's a form of niche protection you don't like. OK, got it. That doesn't invalidate the whole concept of balance.

Yes, you could blame the players or GM for not seeing it, but why not just have a game where either there are no werewolves, or where the werewolves are fun to play?

Again, the designer can't know what precise use the game will be put to, so there is a reason why to make all of the options aproximately equal in potential enjoyment. So at least the system isn't the culprit for the problem.

This seems kind of akin to talking about Ars Magica and asking why there's no support for playing cybernetic Martians in the rules.

No, it's not. I'm not saying that one needs to accomodate any sort of character. I'm saying that all of the options that the game wants to provide (whatever set that is) need to be "balanced" insamuch as they are all viable choices for play.

It's not a very controversial issue.

Rifts is a game that's broken all over the place, and yes, character creation if one OCC was IMPLAUSABLY buffer than another would be another flaw in the system.  If it was implausible.

I'm glad you agree. That's all I've been saying. Whether or not a particular option is "balanced" this way is a subjective thing, but you at least agree that there could be a problem with this sort of balance.

You keep trying to create a disagreement where I don't think one exists.

Mike