"Balance", "Fairness" ?

[Callan S.]

Characters aren't directors, they're actors.  

I'll up the ante on that "Characters aren't directors...they aren't anything, they don't exist.

I'm talking about the tools the players (not the PC, the PLAYER) has to ensure he has equal screen time.

Show me some game other than DnD or other such gamist nonsense where a character was completely outshined by another solely because of statistics.

Most of them. Because most of them rely on someone like you rocking up with sheets of character background and also telling the GM "Hey, look at my cool plot hooks, you gotta show these up in the game"

The forge is about what we can do to design games better. I pretty much know that in your case, your getting good screen time with your puny human in rifts, because your talking to the GM and getting this screen thing to happen with your leet RP skills.

Now, do you think designers should rely on users being just like you, for the game to every customer good screen time/be fun?

Frankly no, I think that's letting those designers be lazy. If I designed something and then think "Ah, it's up to the customer to make the damn game work" I would be shouting "system doesn't matter" from the mountain. And that doesn't pass muster around here.

So when I talk director powers, I mean what director powers the system helps grant the player (not the PC). And if the system doesn't grant the player any director powers, the PC powers they do get are all the players got if they want to have screen time.


PS: I find it ironic how your saying something like "I've stepped on up to roleplay and whooped ass at it! HAH! Who'd wanna be a gamist!"

But don't let my comment side track the post, because I'm not arguing with your statement. Just noting you might be closer to gamism than you realise (as I came to realise myself, over time).

[The God of the Machine]

Ha ha ha.  No, I don't monopolize games with my encyclopaedic collection of plot hooks.  I play them, and my play r0x0rs.

Because most of them rely on someone like you rocking up with sheets of character background and also telling the GM "Hey, look at my cool plot hooks, you gotta show these up in the game"

Not many games in large print runs put background and plot hooks at a higher priority than statistics, at least mechanically speaking.  In any case, that wouldn't be outshining because of statistics, it would be outshining because of depth of character.

Frankly no, I think that's letting those designers be lazy. If I designed something and then think "Ah, it's up to the customer to make the damn game work" I would be shouting "system doesn't matter" from the mountain. And that doesn't pass muster around here.

I think the whole point of this conversation was asking the question "Does the lack of character balance make a game dysfunctional,  or does arbitrary character-balancing?"  You're assuming the answer to this question is that if the game designers don't spend every waking hour giving all characters cookie-cutter potential, the system's broken.

Maybe, maybe not.

What I'M suggesting is that arbitrary character-balance does more to ruin a game than a lack of balance ever does.  Because to make the characters equal arbitrarily one breaks the game's own internal logic and therefore becomes a crappy system.  If the game balance has a good, in-game reason, fine, all power to you, I don't disagree with your assertion that balancing statistics and playability is the most important thing of all time ever.  The only thing I have problem with is the irrationality of some balancings, that's all.

PS: I find it ironic how your saying something like "I've stepped on up to roleplay and whooped ass at it! HAH! Who'd wanna be a gamist!"

Ha ha.  I'm not playing RPGs to "win".  I play it to create wonderful stories and to play with simulating different realities.  I like to think I do these things well.  Does that make me a gamist?

Oh, and Mike....

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

Then don't disagree.  Gimme a hug instead, you big loveable teddy-bear you.

[Eric Borzello]

Ha ha ha.  No, I don't monopolize games with my encyclopaedic collection of plot hooks.  I play them, and my play r0x0rs.

This reminds me of a concept called 'heroism' I've run into in some software engineering courses I've taken.  Heroism is roughly defined as when some person on a software project team kicks it up a notch in order to make sure that the project gets done on time.  These behaviors are things like working for four days straight to get the project back on track, rewriting huge chunks of the program from scratch over the weekend to get them up to snuff, et. cetera.

At first glance it may seem that heroism is good for a software project, since the team members are getting stuff done despite the difficulties.  However, heroism is actually a problem  from a software engineering planning perspective.  Resorting to heroism means that your plan to develop this software was so crappy that you needed people to act like little coding demi-gods just to get the project back on track.

"How does this relate to an rpg?" you have already long since asked yourself.  Well, you can make a system with no regard to giving players equal opportunity to participate in the game.  However, it seems to rely on 'player heroism'  for a Rifts player to be able to role play an anemic French school girl to victory (or at least an interesting plot) despite all odds.  Though certain players are able succeed no matter their character, not every role player on Earth can.  I don't think we should exclude people who are weaker role players from all rpgs a priori,  especially since everyone starts as a weak role player, and learns by doing.

I'm not advocating arbitrarily limiting character abilities, and I'm not advocating a super general rule system where nearly any character concept can be incorporated into every RPG.  However, I think that it is good for the designer of a game to at  least consider whether or not his rules allow all players to have (nearly) equal ability to participate without having to resort to heroism.

[James Holloway]

if one OCC was IMPLAUSABLY buffer than another would be another flaw in the system.  If it was implausible.

So the Hawrk-Duk* is an OK piece of game design because it makes sense that there would be a race of puny weaklings with no earthly use? I mean, I can see that the existence of the Hawrk-Duk RCC doesn't exactly destroy Rifts, but it is kind of a boring waste of space in the Atlantis book.

I'm not sure that one class being "implausibly" better than another is necessarily a flaw with the system, either, except in that the mechanics might not match up with the expectation you'd get from other information on the class/option/power package/what have you.  

* or however you spell it. Additionally, for all I know, Hawrk-Duks are now provided with a background that packs the RCC with thrilling emotional content, compensating for the fact that they are otherwise worthless. I haven't picked up a Rifts book in like ten years.

[Mike Holmes]

You're assuming the answer to this question is that if the game designers don't spend every waking hour giving all characters cookie-cutter potential, the system's broken.

Your hyperbole isn't helping you make your point. You've used this tactic several times already, trying to make the opposing point ridiculous by extrapolating it into something it's not.

You're correct, the subject of the thread is whether or not designers ought to consider forms of balance. But not whether it's the only game design consideration. Essentially, the post seeks to question a notion that's been put up around here that balance might be useless - which you seem to be arguing toward. So you're on topic. But the side opposite you isn't saying that it's the sumum bonum of design. Just that it's something to consider.

What I'M suggesting is that arbitrary character-balance does more to ruin a game than a lack of balance ever does.

And again, you've made that point clearly, repeatedly. Nobody is arguing against you on this point. Rather, nobody has implied that this is a good way to design. In fact, nobody has looked at any particular mechanisms at all, but rather only discussed general types of balance. Everyone will agree with you that balance done crappily does more harm than good. But this is a truism about any part of design. Setting done crappily has the same effect.

The question is what about balance that isn't abitrary, that is well done. Is there no need at all for that?

Mike

[John Kim]

The question is what about balance that isn't abitrary, that is well done. Is there no need at all for that?

Well, no.  I would think it's fairly obvious that there isn't a need for well-done balance -- because people play and have fun in games which don't have that.  I think the question should be more over how do games with more mechanically-enforced balance compare with games without?  

Moreover, how do different approaches to balance compare?  I stated before that there are different kinds of balance, such as:
1) Balance of creative input by the player.
2) Balance of character spotlight time. (This is not the same, since a GM-lead subplot could put a character in the spotlight.)
3) Balance of character coolness / power. Again, this is distinct. For some players, even if their PC is not regularly in the spotlight, their concerns are met if -- when their PC does appear -- it has a lot of impact.
4) Combat balance.

Well, you can make a system with no regard to giving players equal opportunity to participate in the game.  However, it seems to rely on 'player heroism'  for a Rifts player to be able to role play an anemic French school girl to victory (or at least an interesting plot) despite all odds.  Though certain players are able succeed no matter their character, not every role player on Earth can.  I don't think we should exclude people who are weaker role players from all rpgs a priori,  especially since everyone starts as a weak role player, and learns by doing.

What exactly are you trying to balance here -- "participation"?  Do you mean spotlight time?  How are you defining "succeeding"?  In a broad sense, I have almost never seen a system which gives players different opportunity to participate.  All players play by the same rules.  The closest I can think of is games with strong experience can effectively shut out people based on seniority -- which admittedly can be a real problem.  

But I think it is tilting at windmills to make all role-players spotlight time equal regardless of talent, skill, and interest.  There might be some value in the attempt, but that isn't inherently clear to me.  I think a more achievable goal is to make spotlight time dependent on a particular, well-defined skill set like wargaming skill, or storytelling ability and creativity, or something else.  

I'm not advocating arbitrarily limiting character abilities, and I'm not advocating a super general rule system where nearly any character concept can be incorporated into every RPG.  However, I think that it is good for the designer of a game to at  least consider whether or not his rules allow all players to have (nearly) equal ability to participate without having to resort to heroism.

Well, as long as all players are playing by the same rules, they have equal opportunity in a very real sense.  I suspect you are saying something different -- perhaps that players should have equal opportunity during play regardless of their choices in character creation?  That's pretty much tilting at windmills, I think, as I mentioned above.  Personally, my advice is that character creation should be clear in its effects on the game, and allow for a wide variety of character types.  Having weaker or less interesting options doesn't particularly hurt a game, and they can be fun to explore.

[The God of the Machine]

Your hyperbole isn't helping you make your point. You've used this tactic several times already, trying to make the opposing point ridiculous by extrapolating it into something it's not.

Oh, fie on you.  What you call "hyperbole" I call "carrying a train of thought to its logically extreme destination".  Potato, potatoe really.

But the side opposite you isn't saying that it's the sumum bonum of design.

And might I add your use of Latin isn't helping make your point either.  So there.

The question is what about balance that isn't abitrary, that is well done. Is there no need at all for that?

Personally, my advice is that character creation should be clear in its effects on the game, and allow for a wide variety of character types. Having weaker or less interesting options doesn't particularly hurt a game, and they can be fun to explore.

I couldn't have put it more beautifully, Mr. Kim.

I'm gonna go a step further and answer that question in terms of these "stances" that drive you kids wild.  A gamist would probably say yes, there is a need for the balance, because playing a character with more power or more inherent opportunities for play gives that character an edge when overcoming obstacles, gaining XP or achieving a "high score" or whatever nonsense.  To a hardcore gamist, this is cheating, same as playing Battleship near a downturned reflective surface that only your opponent can see, or playing Scrabble when your opponent has a dictionary.  To this gamist, every participant should have an equal chance of "winning".  In character creation, this type of person would probably prefer a straight point-based system, such as White Wolf, or a straight random generation of statistics, such as DnD.

To a narrativist, balance should only be enforced inasmuch as it serves the story.  If one character is able to dive into every other character's plot hook and solve the problems for everyone, this is probably an uninteresting story and a boring game to boot.  However, many stories revolve around the fact that there IS a large power inequality within the group.  As was mentioned earlier, can you imagine Gandalf and Bilbo or Frodo Baggins being built with the same number of points or levels or what-have-you?  I can't either.  One is obviously more proficient at what he does than the other, at least from the beginning.  I would even go so far as to say that some stories REVOLVE around character inequality, and how the characters close that gap during the plot.  Therefore, I would say a hardcore narrativist GM would appreciate a CharGen system that is variable point-based, such as Champions or Gurps, or one with variable random generation, such as Rifts.

Finally, a simulationist would simply scoff at point-based systems altogether.  Anyone who looks around at the real world knows that, really, all people are not based on the same number of "points".  Some are better-looking AND smarter AND wealthier and generally more important than you, some are uglier AND stupider AND poorer and generally less important than you, and that if you were to stat everyone alive, you would see that all men are definitely NOT created equal, at least in a tangible sense.  Therefore, I believe a simulationist (which I'll admit I probably drift towards more than the others) would dislike a pure point-based mechanic and drift more towards a random mechanic like the ones mentioned above or some hybrid dice/point mechanic like the R. Talsorian system or Call of Cthulhu, all to better simulate the importance of circumstance in the world.

But really, I couldn't do better than Mr. Kim's sweet and succinct statement above.  I'm open to disagreement, anyone?

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Alex (God of the Machine), this is a moderator post.

Your current posting habits are absolutely unacceptable at the Forge. They are composed of a number of internet chat/forum tactics which are widely practiced elsewhere, and in fact, probably expected elsewhere. However, they will not be tolerated here.

Typically, they'll be ignored. Some folks will post in hopes of engaging you in more meaningful interactions, and if you don't reciprocate (which so far, you are not), then none of your posts will receive replies or acknowledgment.

If you persist with such posts after that point, I'll simply route them to the Inactive File, and if they continue to be unacceptable after that, then I'll treat them as spam and send'em there unread. Posts are not deleted here, nor are users banned - but there's no reason to permit useless posting to clutter up the place.

And yes, it's useless. Your evaluation of what a skilled and experienced role-player you are is irrelevant. Your willingness to swipe at people who are trying to converse with you means no one will bother, soon. Your playful terms ("fie" and so on) or overstated jibes ("drive you kids wild," "big words about nothing") are not fun and witty, they are obnoxious. Your determination to stake out a point and defend it against all comers is not discourse; it is posturing.

Review the sticky threads in the Site Discussion forum in order to get a better idea of what the site is about. This is not a "all posts welcome, all folks welcome, all things welcome" site. We have goals. People who post here do not have the time to waste on folks who are not committed to the standards outlined in those stickies.

However, you are not required to read my essays or to utilize them in discussion here. But if you do utilize the terms or comment on them (as you're trying to do), then you should actually read them, which clearly you have not done regardless of what you've claimed.

Do not post in response. I'm uninterested in any possible response you can make; I will consider a response-post merely to be ego-spam.

Please continue participating in discussions, if you revise your habits of posting. This is advice you should consider strongly.

Best,
Ron

[Kat Miller]

Are we saying that Spotlight time = Balance/Fairness?

1) Balance of creative input by the player.
2) Balance of character spotlight time. (This is not the same, since a GM-lead subplot could put a character in the spotlight.)
3) Balance of character coolness / power. Again, this is distinct. For some players, even if their PC is not regularly in the spotlight, their concerns are met if -- when their PC does appear -- it has a lot of impact.
4) Combat balance.

Yes, but
1) Creative Input = Spotlight time
2) "Character" Spotlight time = Spotlight time
3)Coolness / Power = impact during Spotlight time.
4) Combat balance

So 4) would be the only thing that didn't = spotlight time except

In a strongly competitive game, particularly one that is combat based, we balance spotlight time by making all the player characters equally strong in those ways that matter in play. The fighter has his multiple attacks and damage bonuses; the thief has his sneak attack and damage multiplier; the magic-user has his killer spells; the cleric has his power to tip the odds (blessings and curses). We try to make these such that each will shine in his own way to the same degree in combat. If we fail, then whenever we enter combat some players are effectively sidelined, and they're not enjoying that part of the game.

SO even 4) Combat Balance seems to be about Spotlight time.

This makes sense to me because for years I've run Everway.  I run one shots at conventions and the game claims to have balance because everyone has an equal number of character points to start with.  

Players will make very powerful and not so powerful characters but its not the power behind the character that makes a difference, there is no real guide to direct spotlight time.  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.  

Mike Miller's With Great Power is not really concerned about keeping a power balance in the game.  Each player can create as strong or weak a character as they want to play but the game is designed around a balance of spotlight time and I think that makes all the difference.

[James Holloway]

Are we saying that Spotlight time = Balance/Fairness?

Maybe. I'm not sure I buy all those "= spotlight time" statements. I've seen games where players were perfectly happy staying out of the spotlight; some people are just more comfortable taking center stage than others. I would say that spotlight time (which I take to mean "time in which the attention of the group is focused on a particular player's input") is a subset of creative input as well as, in some systems, character effectiveness.

I do think that games which ensure equal access to spotlight time are more likely to be thought of as "balanced."

[John Kim]

Yes, but
1) Creative Input = Spotlight time
2) "Character" Spotlight time = Spotlight time
3) Coolness / Power = impact during Spotlight time.
4) Combat balance

Well, no, I don't think so.  I can go into more detail about this.  I guess I'll illustrate by describing exclusive cases:

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.  

(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.

[Callan S.]

Are we saying that Spotlight time = Balance/Fairness?

Maybe. I'm not sure I buy all those "= spotlight time" statements. I've seen games where players were perfectly happy staying out of the spotlight; some people are just more comfortable taking center stage than others. I would say that spotlight time (which I take to mean "time in which the attention of the group is focused on a particular player's input") is a subset of creative input as well as, in some systems, character effectiveness.

I do think that games which ensure equal access to spotlight time are more likely to be thought of as "balanced."

I agree. But I think it's just further misstargeted design. If you take it that sans any director stance power granted by the system (like buffy's drama points) your PC's powers ARE the closest you get to director stance powers, then you get this problem: 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.

Really we don't need actor/pawn stance balance, but director stance that is largely separated from that tactical matrix. When I say 'largely', I'm thinking that buffy drama points are to a degree part of the games tactical matrix, since they can bring dead characters back to like (and when is that not useful). But largely it's seperated from something like the mechanics for punching someone in the head.

The traditional idea of balance may be akin to keeping the bathwater, just in case we throw out the baby with it.

[James Holloway]

 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."

Not that I'm claiming that this is the best way to do things. But when it comes to "balance," I think we may be approaching things from the back end. In a way, I think Alex had a good grasp on this idea, that one of the problems commonly thought of as resulting from an unbalanced system, badly apportioned screen time, can be adjusted in other ways. What problems result from an unbalanced system? I think there are a number, as many as there are definitions of balance. Well, what are some ways to solve these problems? I think we'll find that some of the ways to address them are, in fact, what we would think of as mechanical balance, but that some are at the social contract level, and that some are other types of rules.

[Eric Borzello]

Well, you can make a system with no regard to giving players equal opportunity to participate in the game.  However, it seems to rely on 'player heroism'  for a Rifts player to be able to role play an anemic French school girl to victory (or at least an interesting plot) despite all odds.  Though certain players are able succeed no matter their character, not every role player on Earth can.  I don't think we should exclude people who are weaker role players from all rpgs a priori,  especially since everyone starts as a weak role player, and learns by doing.

What exactly are you trying to balance here -- "participation"?  Do you mean spotlight time?  How are you defining "succeeding"?  In a broad sense, I have almost never seen a system which gives players different opportunity to participate.  All players play by the same rules.  The closest I can think of is games with strong experience can effectively shut out people based on seniority -- which admittedly can be a real problem.  

But I think it is tilting at windmills to make all role-players spotlight time equal regardless of talent, skill, and interest.  There might be some value in the attempt, but that isn't inherently clear to me.  I think a more achievable goal is to make spotlight time dependent on a particular, well-defined skill set like wargaming skill, or storytelling ability and creativity, or something else.  

Sorry for my unclear post, I'll try to clarify a little.  The idea that any concern for balance in a RPG is a waste of time has been brought up periodically in this thread.  The point I was trying to make (in admittedly vague terms) is that a system should give players equal opportunity to participate the CA.

Here is an example, since the above is still too vague.  Let's say I'm making a combat heavy, crunchy, gamist RPG.  It would be possible to include a character type called 'The Wet Rag' who had no abilities other than the fact this his combat abilities were always set to 1% of the worst other combatant within 100 miles.  Perhaps there is a compelling reason (story, designer's personal preference, whatever) to include this character type.  It seems clear that this character seems intrinsically poorly constructed to excel in the hypothetical game above.  

Though there are some people who, given a Wet Rag type character, could succeed through superior tactics, out of game referee influencing skills, or some other non-system method. However, it doesn't seem that this is a good situation my hypothetical RPG to be in when it requires a percentage of players to exert extraordinary effort just to be as able Step on Up as well as the other players.

That being said, Nethack has the Tourist class for challenge, and there is certainly something to be said for giving players who want to work extra hard the opportunity to do so.

[James Holloway]

That being said, Nethack has the Tourist class for challenge, and there is certainly something to be said for giving players who want to work extra hard the opportunity to do so.

Right. You can always think of "underpowered" character classes as an opportunity to scale the difficulty level or even handicap more experienced players. It's important that this be up-front, however. The worst thing in the world is finding out that your character option sucks halfway through playing it.