Heya,

I was reading the thread by Sean (A note on balance) and it sparked a discussion (argument) between
myself and a friend of mine (Scott) who was over for roleplaying that night. He didnt get what Sean was trying
to say and disagreed with his use of the word "balance" for many of the reasons Ron pointed out
in his various essays. What I said was, what he really wants Balance of Character. A long discussion
ensued what the heck that meant, and I will breifly sum my conlcusion up for you here.

Balance of Character is something that is a Gamist term- at least I think it is and I'll explain why in just
a bit. It is where the mechanics of the characters, regardless of type (template, class, race, skill set,
background, status, religion, etc), is an effective conduit for all the players in any given situation. And by effective
I mean allowing them to Step on Up. An imBalance of Chracter is where the mechanics of a character
prevents the player from Stepping Up while others are able to do so with theirs. The reason for an imBalance of
character can be anything from the way the System works, to a poor choice made at Chargen (people
around here call that getting Scrogged), or a misunderstanding of how the system works as the
character has progressed/changed over time.

So then Scott asked, what's the ideal then? I said basically for Gamists, their Nirvana is when all capabilities,
mechanically speaking, of all characters regarldess of race, creed, or function reach such a state of parity
that the only differential between them is the player's ability (quick thinking, roleplay experience, knowledge
of the system, and so on). This is like what NASCAR has done to stock car racing. Basically they made
all cars equal so the only difference was the driver's ability. Back in the 60s and 70s (and really even
before that) whichever of Detriot's big 3 came out with the newest car, the drivers who drove them
mopped the floor with everyone else. Now, all the cars have basically the same engines, drag coefficient,
transimissions, etc (think of these as the mechanics of a character) and there is near parity between
all the vehicles. Winning (idealy) depends solely on the ability of the driver.

I went on to say that Balance of Character is not as important in Simulationist play because the focus
is on exploring the system or the setting. If the system allows for one type of character to be more
powerful than the others (like in Ars Magica) then that is okay. So long as it doesnt violate the CA or SC.
In Narrativism it's a totally moot point because the imBalance of Character could be the very Premise for
the story. For example, the Premise could be how do you react in the presence of someone far more
powerful than you? Power, of course, could range from politcal to physical to magical to whatever.

So anyway, I do not wish to mislead my friend. Is my thinking here sound or have I fundamentally
misunderstood the goals of the different CAs?

Peace,

-Troy Costisick

Hello,

I think you're on the right track, Troy. One consideration is that you're talking about one sort of Gamist play out of many, and that others might includes nuances like handicaps or a team approach (in which characters are valuable insofar as they serve a team-specific niche).

The sort of Gamist play that you're talking about, though, is highly vulnerable to powergaming, in the form of mini-maxing. I'll define this term very carefully for purposes of this thread: mini-maxing is gaining a disproportionate advantage from a specific instance of Currency manipulation, as compared to the other ways Currency is manipulated in this particular rules-set.

Let's look at that carefully, using an example from the game which practically defined this whole debate: early Champions.

One way to reduce costs of powers in Champions was to put them into a "power framework" which permitted them to be employed only one at a time (it's subtler than that, but never mind for purposes of the thread).

Another way to reduce costs was to limit the number of times the power could be used.

Now put the above two together, and you have four or five distinct powers, usable a few times apiece, all sharing a "pool" of common points for purposes of buying them. This is a huge rip-off, though, because (a) you aren't going to be splitting the common pool for usage, as you can only fire one power at a time anyway, and (b) the limited uses don't mean much.

Oh yeah, and let's put all of the above in a power-implant suit thing which will reduce the cost still further.

So what I'm getting at is that the math of Champions permitted some extraordinary effectiveness-increases which outstripped most other approaches to building characters. This is why Monte Cook calls early Champions a "twink's dream," because it's vulnerable to powergaming if you bring that particular sort of Gamism to the table.

Why am I going into all this? To ask you whether your friend is a min-max hater or a mini-max lover. Because the Gamist play that you're talking about is neatly split down the middle along these lines.

Best,
Ron

Heya,

I'd have to ask to be sure, but I dont think that he (or myself) would necessarily be for or against min-maxing as you put it. Currency manipulation is always a great recipe for screwing up a system and therefore a session. There is no doubt to that.

But what he and I were discussing doesnt necessarily involve that. What we had in mind was the idea that true Balance of Character is insuring that each player has equal access to Stepping Up in every situation regardless of the chargen mechanics and character advancement mechanics. It's a very limited way of looking at how one character stacks up against another.

The currency manipulation in Champions may or may not inhibit a player's ability to Step On Up. If each player/character has access to the same sort of manipulation (and does access it) then, in theory. Balance of Character is still maintain because any given player can use those abilities. Where you would have an imBalance of Character would be if one player did that and no other players did. The, obviously, the other characters would limit the other players- they just wouldnt be as capable.

This may REALLY screw things up for the GM. But that's not what we were considering. We were looking at player character vs player character.

Now hopefully, I have understood what you meant. I am still educating myself in the way of GNS, so I may have gone off in a totally wrong direction. If I did, I appologize and ask you to help me clear my noggin of the spider webs that clog it heh heh.

Peace,

-Troy Costisick

Hi there,

This is going fine. Now that I have a clearer view of what you're talking about:

the idea that true Balance of Character is insuring that each player has equal access to Stepping Up in every situation regardless of the chargen mechanics and character advancement mechanics. It's a very limited way of looking at how one character stacks up against another.
...
We were looking at player character vs player character.

Are there really Gamists out there who expect their character to be equally mechanically effective in every situation? Isnt it a case of having equal opportunities to shine, over the session(s)? And also, isnt gamist kudos inversely proportional to effectiveness?

Heya,

Are there really Gamists out there who expect their character to be equally mechanically effective in every situation?

Isnt it a case of having equal opportunities to shine, over the session(s)?

And also, isnt gamist kudos inversely proportional to effectiveness?

In not sure how this Gamist(?) "nirvana" of Character Balance is at all achievable. If its a game where characters have a wide range of possible skills/talents/strengths, then balance will require a tradeoff in charater generation....which then means in some situations the specialist will shine much more brightly.

Of course the GM could contrive every encounter to give everyone an opportunity...

Heya,

I think it is possible for a game to acheive Balance of Character. Orkworld did, as long as everyone played a Thracka. I think Sorceror does also, for all intents and purposes. But there is something important to note about both these games: they are both Narativist games, not Gamist games. Im not sure what that means other than to say, I dont know of any Gamist game that has reached Nirvana.

Like I said before, it is a player ideal not necissarily a designer ideal. Therefore I am not sure we will see many or any games the strive to reach Balance of Character. However, I do believe it is something for us to discuss because it is important to a good many Gamist players.

And I do agree, though, that a GM certainly could contrive each challenge so that each player can have a chance to shine, but that is not a design issue I dont think. Good point tho.

Peace,

-Troy Costisick

PS: This post may require some more thought and revision.

Hi Troy,

Here's what I'm seeing in your posts.

Consider a game in which each character has a Fight score, a Magic score, and an Everything Else score. Also consider that one does not buy these scores out of a limited pool, but rather rolls 5d6 and sums up the best three dice for each score. So everyone is probably in the 13-18 range for each score, which we'll say, in this game, is pretty good.

In other words, all the characters are numerically alike (and frankly, the dice was just a kluge; might as well have given each one a 16 in each score or something). Now perhaps each character has a "style" which explains what they look like or special details of their abilities, with Bad-Ass Assassin, Tough Fighter, or Bright Lightning Wizard being some examples. These styles really don't affect much in terms of effectiveness except maybe adding some color to play, or adding good stuff like strangulation, dismemberment, or electrocution, respectively.

These characters are all balanced as you suggest. Throw any one of them into a situation, and each one can handle it on his own. Throw any two of them into a situation, and effectively you have double-firepower.

In my experience, most Gamist role-playing doesn't tend in this direction. It's a little hard to piece out from other variables, most especially when characters start with very little ability and build many abilities through play, but I am inclined to think that most Gamist play tends toward niche specialization.

Reason 1 is that being good at one thing and bad at another represents, itself, a form of strategizing based on limited options. This is a feature of many Systems which facilitate Gamist play, simply because it's a fun thing to do.

Reason 2 is that party/team play is often a feature of Gamist play, and when it is, players accept that their characters are individually going to be hosed if they're caught in the wrong situation without the right guy next to them.

Now for something funny: there is a very Gamist-tending role-playing game out there which does "generalize" characters very much in the way you suggest. Even when you pick high values for one score and low values for another, and even though that affects some options during play, the characters are always essentially equally effective.

In such a game, the main competitive skill involved is inventive and wicked modification of the game-environment, including ...

a) relationships among the characters, as in who's backstabbing whom, or who's fighting the troll while the others heave the treasure onto the wagon

b) relationships among the players, as in who's tattling on the others in terms of some rule they're not applying

c) physical objects in the game-world, as in seizing the chamber-pot from under the ogre's bed (because there must be one, after all) and hitting him with it

d) finding and negotiating over the best loot

The game is called Elfs. My point about it is that when you level the playing-field in terms of opportunities across the character sheets, the people will then shift to the game-world itself and the social situation at the table in order to find an uneven playing-field, because to make use of such a thing is the essence of strategizing. Elfs only works because its rules-set recognizes this tendency and exploits it mercilessly.

Tell me - have you ever been in a role-playing situation, and I'm talking about actual play, in which this Character Balance of yours was observed for any sustained period of time? Or is this an ideal that this friend of yours has brought to the conversation without reference to real experiences in play?

Best,
Ron

Heya,

Yeah, I think I could give two examples.

First, and this goes back a few years, was in a Call of Cthullu campaign. There were three players and a GM. One player chose to be an Athlete (me), another chose to be a Student (Matt), and the other chose to be a Proffessor (Peter). We were by no means experts at the game, but we knew what the scoop was. Therefore we all put emphasis on some type of weapon (Colt 45, Shotgun, Axe), in Library Use, and Spott Hidden. Of course some of us rounded out a few other skills we thought we would need. Throughout the campaign (three months, 10 sessions or so of about 4-6 hours each) it really didnt matter which of us, or which combo of us went to the Library to research, talked to the priest who "knew things", cased the haunted house down the street, investigated the graveyard for clues, or shot at the zombies. Our characters were built so similarly that we were all equally capable of performing whatever challenge was in front of us. Just because Peter was a professor and I was an Athelete did not inhibit us from performing at any point in the campaign.

Second is the campaign Im currently running with Ember Twilight. This campaign has been going on for 8 months now. Just a quick background on the game, almost all skills are open to all characters regardless of any mechanic (race, class, religion, ethics, etc). In the party of six, I have one guy playing a Shadowblade (Dave) and another playing an Archer (Mike). The shadowblade uses magic to enhance his "sneaky" skills like stalking, hiding, tracking, silent killing, etc. The archer, normally considered just a damage dealer, has the option of developing those same skills through hard work. The end result so far in this campaign has been the shadowblade and the archer have developed themselves so that each has a near equal equal shot of performing a stealth mission successfully. Often, those two will break away from the group to scout, steal, spy, or assassinate some NPC. They go together for two reasons: 1 it's fun, 2 just in case one fails the other is there to back them up. The shadowblade and aracher at participating in Balance of Character. If the whole party wanted to, they could all develop those skills. Some have chosen not to, which is fine. They are only limited by the choices they make.

Both examples are of how a system did not mechanically inhibit the players from making characters who could perform well against any given challenge they forsaw coming. In either campaign, there could be challenges that await the player/characters that exploit their weaknesses, but the weaknesses the characters may have is a result of player choice not mechanical imposition.

In my experience, most Gamist role-playing doesn't tend in this direction. It's a little hard to piece out from other variables, most especially when characters start with very little ability and build many abilities through play, but I am inclined to think that most Gamist play tends toward niche specialization.

My point about it is that when you level the playing-field in terms of opportunities across the character sheets, the people will then shift to the game-world itself and the social situation at the table in order to find an uneven playing-field, because to make use of such a thing is the essence of strategizing.

Ron Edwards wrote: Now for something funny: there is a very Gamist-tending role-playing game out there which does "generalize" characters very much in the way you suggest. Even when you pick high values for one score and low values for another, and even though that affects some options during play, the characters are always essentially equally effective.

In such a game, the main competitive skill involved is inventive and wicked modification of the game-environment, including ...

a) relationships among the characters, as in who's backstabbing whom, or who's fighting the troll while the others heave the treasure onto the wagon

b) relationships among the players, as in who's tattling on the others in terms of some rule they're not applying

c) physical objects in the game-world, as in seizing the chamber-pot from under the ogre's bed (because there must be one, after all) and hitting him with it

d) finding and negotiating over the best loot

The game is called Elfs.

Troy - isnt then Character Balance only achievable if all the players want it? In your CoC example, what if a fourth player turns up and decides to play a specialist academic, or gangster, etc?

Heya :)

Troy - isnt then Character Balance only achievable if all the players want it? In your CoC example, what if a fourth player turns up and decides to play a specialist academic, or gangster, etc?

Another version of Troy's Balance of Character concept occurs sometimes in LARPs, when the core strategic aspects of the game turn out to lie in domains outside the areas of significant mechanical differences between characters' effectiness. For instance, if success is best achieved by solving the most puzzles or building the largest coalition of allies, then players' actual puzzle-solving abilities or real-world charisma (respectively) will overshadow distinctions in character descriptions such as one character being a clever scholar versus another a renowned military leader. As with the other examples in this thread, this can be seen as a good thing or a bad thing depending on the players' preferences.