Game balance, as a meta-game concept, is important, IMO. If one player is somehow more valuable, important, or effective than other players, then the gaming experience will be less enjoyable for those players. They'll get stuck being an audience for the "cool" player.

I've never been that concerned with game balance at the setting level, however. The literature for the kinds of games I like to play are full of widely varying power levels between different characters.

The problem in many systems is that having a powerful character directly results in having a powerful player. If a player's character is powerful, then the character's player can do much more in the game. His power is greater than that of the other players, so they end up taking the back seat. This seems like the original spawning point of munchkinism: "If character power equates to player involvement, why would I ever want to play an inferior character? It would make my position in the game inferior, and therefore not desireable." Although it's probably not ever that articulated. :)

The question is, what are the ways of keeping player power equal, but allowing very different levels of character effectiveness within the game? How many different techniques have you seen? What are the best ways to go about it?

Hey there,

Some of my concerns with the very concept of "balance" are voiced in the big essay. Basically, I think it's another term that flings around multiple meanings and yields very little help to actual play or design unless it's carefully specified.

Here are some threads that kicked it around in RPG Theory, but I think there are others in Indie Design too.

Game Balance

Reward Systems

Best,
Ron

Well, I'm not completely sure on this, but one way is to focus on the story. In this way, the players are more-or-less equal storytellers while their characters don't have to be equal at all.

In either case, it probably means saying goodbye to avatarism or the "my guy" stance where you "are" your guy. In this mode, you are your character and will naturally want to be powerful and effective, and maybe even want the spotlight and such.

But this depends, I guess.

I'll second the opinion that saying goodbye to avatarism is really the only solution and I think this is an excellent topic.

Unless avatarism is eliminated from the game you have a twofold problem. Player A gets bitter,resentful,intimidated..any flavor of "unhappy"... because player B either is a "better" role-player who can either bend the system to achieve more power or a "better" role-player who can utilize the setting and roleplay themselves into a position of more power. Trying to make the system "ruthlessly fair" ends up with either Player A unhappy because Player B still accomplishes more because they can -still- manipulate either the mechanics, the plot or both, or it forces Player B into Player A's mediocrity and stagnates the game.

Kick avatarism out the door, kick player-vs-player competitiveness out the door, improve the group dynamics so that characters can be at different in-game power levels at different points in the chronicle but no one feels "cheated". Otherwise, someone will. Almost always.

Jack and Laurel,

My problem with your replies is that they basically kick whole styles of play out of the window. This isn't just Gamism, either; all sorts of Situations presuppose power-parity among the characters (or between characters and NPCs) as part of the necessary trappings, and thus they would be important to Narrativist and Simulationist play that explore such Situations.

It's not that I disagree with the actual claim, because it is valid when and if everyone simply shares a priority that doesn't include "balance." However, I would like to see if the question can be addressed in a way that provides useful principles across a variety of modes of play.

(Granted, those will probably be plural principles, or sets of adjustable parameters, rather than One Way. I'm lookin' to Fang here ... he seems to have mused over this stuff about as much as a mind can muse ...)

Best,
Ron

Pags,

As GNS/GDS/DKS/HIV layman, I would respectfully submit the following.

First, the definition of power is loose and varies from group to group. If your concern is "in-game power as defined by character attributes, abilities, and utility", then a whole other can of worms gets opened about who can do what and when, and what games best facilitate this, or what house rules will help deal. (For the record, I am a fan of house rules, because of the variety, change in perspective, and levels that can be added. I also think it is hubris for any game designer to assume that his product is so complete as to not require tampering.)

However, if we are talking about power in the sense of "stage time" or the ability to produce fun, then that is absolutely, positively, not even remotely connected to the character, as defined by the game mechanics. That is 100% player.

Example A: A campaign years ago. AD&D original, typical power gamer group. Characters were a cavalier, a barbarian, a thief, and my cleric. My cleric was (by game standards) average in all attribute (highest was a 14 Wisdom) compared to my cheating rat-bastard counterparts. I was weak physically, poor in combat, no useful skills (other than the first level band-aid spells), etc. However, my character practically dominated the game. I shared scenes with my other players, but I inevitably got the laughs. I changed my surname every half-hour depending on game events (Thartin the bold, Thartin the incompetent, Thartin the invincible, etc.) I pushed the envelope on what we could do in game. I died spectacularly, with a pun on my lips at the ripe old age of third level, and was happy about it. In short, I had the majority of the power, because I decided the direction of the fun, and dragged the rest of the party along. I brought fun into the game, and that is the source of power.

Example B: A different campaign, me as GM. Players created a diverse and mixed group, lots of personalities. One player, notorious for power-gaming, rules raped a character that should never have been (but that's my fault.) His character was hugely powerful in many aspects in-game, and could easily have dominated every situation because of his abilities. Reality? He became a background character that everyone else treated like a universal toolbox, and brought him out when needed. The other players basically punked him, and made him their kid. Now, normally I'd have felt bad about it, but the player was so over the top on his demands, and his interference with the other players' enjoyment that I allowed them to ride a little roughshod over him. He actually learned to mellow a bit. (not much, though.)

I could go on and on, but I think the point is clear, from the perspective I mentioned. If gaming is about fun, then the people who do the most to facilitate that fun will have the majority of the power. There are unspoken concessions that are made in every group, and those change from group to group, and even from day to day. The biggest concession is the implied, not explicit, sharing of power. It is all well and good to say that power is shared, but it is another to experience it. Just as in my example above, in a game where the GM is (usually) considered to have sole power (AD&D), a player was able to take it. This is by unspoken concession, and provided no one gets hurt, it is fine. However, it is a privelege, and abuse can develop rather quickly.

Okay, that may be another topic altogether and one that I am toyig with anyway, so I will get off the box. In short, power is relative, and no game can define how a group will allow that power to play, but that doesn't stop people from trying.

-Skippy

Hey, Ron.

I suppose you're right, but I think that the question, how to maintain player balance while having different character power levels, kicks several styles of play out the window itself, to be fair.

I basically did what I normally do with these sorts of questions, I sidestep most of the traditional methods and go with a "just do this" thing. Mainly because I can't see another way that wouldn't involve a lot of work, (testing, revising, retesting, repeat) and still not solve the problem put forth here. Better? Perhaps, but still might have an issue if only in isolated cases.

Which is why I suggested the separation of player and character may be necessary, since in this way all the players may be on more or less equal footing even if their players are not.

But I don't maintain it's the only way, but it is the way I would choose as I don't see the point to another way. But that's just me again.

I've probably mentioned before that I had a player who quite deliberately played powerless characters; probably unusually, powerlessness was the role he wanted to play. He was an extremely active player, though, and I personally don't think he really FELT powerless. Interestingly, in this game I was trying an experiment in extreme minimalism, mechanically, and he came up with a "hate dogs" feature - it's a real pity I did notn have something like HeroWars at the time with which I could have systemetised it (although HW is still a bit heavy for me).

Personally, I have frequently found myself under-spending in point based character systems, after the level of power I envisioned from the character concept had been achieved. At other times I was frustrated by not being able to spend enough to meet the concept.

I think many systems have been weighted by their mechanics; a game with lots of combat-specific mechanics tends to produce characters with abilities that interact with those mechanics. I think the fuzzy systems of recent vintage, working at conflict level of abstraction rather than task resolution, have gone a long way to making the issue redundant, both by the range of conflicts they can address and their flexibility in interpreting actions. Thinking of the same player in a different game, I think he liked to improvise unconventional solutions rather than have a default "draw sword" or whatever. Conflict level resolutions can give this player a string presence in conflicts of any type; he would only run into difficulties if the system was strict and focussed on a particular type of conflict.

The point of this ramble is that effectiveness in a game sense, in the course of actual play, is distinct from any kind of power derived from setting or even mechanics, IMO. I suspect that when included with the relationship map, the actual mechanics themselves provide very little barrier to player action because the things they are doing are at an interpersonal level to a much greater extent, and the mechanical resolution is being aimed at a much wider variety of targets. I think the real issue is whether or not their are subjects and objects to act and act upon in the game system. Hmm, lets say we distinguish between primary, core mechanics for resolving conflicts, and secondary level mechanics for resolving situations - things like weapon modifiers or vehicle ratings. I think relationship maps would fall at this level too, and perhaps there is room for other secondary systems to interact with say machinery, or magic, or social systems. I think this might further eliminate the problems of balance by giving not just options but possibilities, and characters might be fully effective as human beings unconstrained from a narrow mechanical focus.

Because these describe situations, in the sense of a specific array of subjects and objects and relationships between them, they are pretty much universal to all RPG's, like relationship maps or weapons. They could probably be designed largely in the asbtract and implemented into according to extensions of the core resolution mechanic.

I'm sure this is based on stuff Ron and etc. have in the other referenced threads, but I've been posting up a storm (for me) lately and . . . work's been in a weird flux state that allows for that, but really, I'm short on time. So applogies if this entirely/mostly duplicates already-existing thoughts.

Anyway . . . here's an example of what I've been thinking about as "dramatic balance". It's a scene that's appeared in tons o'movies - the kick-ass (male, almost exclusively) character is chopping/punching/shooting his way though a gang of bad guys, while the physically incompetent (and usually gorgeous female) character leaps about, or cowers, or in some other way makes almost no contribution to the battle. Untill . . . that crucial bad guy is about to wack our hero in the back, and she slams a fry-pan down on the bad guys head. Or throws a chair, alerting our hero to the sniper behind the curtain. And etc . . .

Ignoring the cliches and the reinforced sterotypes, I assert that this kind of scene would be a good thing in an RPG - and is exactly the kind of thing that almost never happens. In RPG terms, "ranking" the kick ass hero and the gorgeous sidekick in "combat strength" keep this scene from happening as anything but an infrequent, lucky happenstance (usually requiring the sidekick to put him/herself in absurd peril to even attempt it). "Balancing", say the hero's kick-assness against the sidekicks' beauty leads to an UNbalanced ability to influence the scene. You could construct a similar example in a scene that focus on seduction - in movies/fiction/etc., there would be SOME way for the . . . unbeautiful character to play a key role in how things play out. In RPGs, balance often leads to complete (or at least highly unlikely) ability to influence some things, and amazing ability to influence others. That leads (in my experience) to player's entirely disengaging from scenes where they know they have no power.

So . . . when I hear "balance" nowadays, I think about in terms of ability to influence a scene dramatically. Not neccessarily primarily - everyone can't be primary in every scene, that's absurd - but meaningfully. The kick-ass hero does not have his key character traits invalidated if we give the sidekick some way to have an infrequent, but important, impact on the scenes that feature his kick-assness.

Hope that's useful,

Gordon

contracycle wrote: Personally, I have frequently found myself under-spending in point based character systems, after the level of power I envisioned from the character concept had been achieved. At other times I was frustrated by not being able to spend enough to meet the concept.

pblock wrote:
I suppose you're right, but I think that the question, how to maintain player balance while having different character power levels, kicks several styles of play out the window itself, to be fair.

..

While we're on the topic of superheroes, we probably ought to get beyond the 'comparing only two characters' and the 'one weak character in a field of gods' mentality.

I often come back to the Lois and Clark: the New Adventures of Superman model (not that it was that good of a show). Here we have a 'game' where only one 'player' even has superpowers. I suggest that all the players, in advance, chose to create 'normal' characters and also to involve all of them in the newspaper business.

Now its the superhero who's out of place. Those same powers, which would make him the star of any other game, now become a liability. They are something he constantly has to 'keep under wraps.' When he does use them, he has to be mindful of not hurting the rest of the cast. Not at all like the standard model.

While it's in the extreme, I think it provides a different model to consider the 'character balance' issue on. This is much more a character-driven game than a superpower-driven game. I always tutor to glean this kind of basis when framing a game for the players. (And that 'framing' should be more a negotiation anyway.) Look for the common ground where none of the extremes of mechanical character efficacy can push other characters out of the spotlight. (And as above this can obviously be mechanized too.)

Notice too, that every story (at least the ones I paid attention to) involved the human issues first and only had the supervillain support and reinforce that premise. (Well, they mostly did this badly, but you can imagine how to do it right, right?) Balancing a game that completely lacks point-based balance (if this were a Champions game) is quite possible, if you get past thinking of the characters as only being effective based on their points.

Fang Langford

Le Joueur wrote:
While we're on the topic of superheroes, we probably ought to get beyond the 'comparing only two characters' and the 'one weak character in a field of gods' mentality.

I often come back to the Lois and Clark: the New Adventures of Superman model (not that it was that good of a show). Here we have a 'game' where only one 'player' even has superpowers. I suggest that all the players, in advance, chose to create 'normal' characters and also to involve all of them in the newspaper business.

Now its the superhero who's out of place. Those same powers, which would make him the star of any other game, now become a liability. They are something he constantly has to 'keep under wraps.' When he does use them, he has to be mindful of not hurting the rest of the cast. Not at all like the standard model.

While it's in the extreme, I think it provides a different model to consider the 'character balance' issue on. This is much more a character-driven game than a superpower-driven game. I always tutor to glean this kind of basis when framing a game for the players. (And that 'framing' should be more a negotiation anyway.) Look for the common ground where none of the extremes of mechanical character efficacy can push other characters out of the spotlight. (And as above this can obviously be mechanized too.)

Notice too, that every story (at least the ones I paid attention to) involved the human issues first and only had the supervillain support and reinforce that premise. (Well, they mostly did this badly, but you can imagine how to do it right, right?) Balancing a game that completely lacks point-based balance (if this were a Champions game) is quite possible, if you get past thinking of the characters as only being effective based on their points.

Hi Mike (Epoch),

Your point about traditional media vs. role-playing is a good one, but I also think that Fang's point bears some reflection too.

It seems to me that most of us are agreeing quite well on the general concept that participation and the ability to contribute to play-events is the key variable.

The trouble is, methods to achieve that are as various as the day is long, ranging from, "Well, we all just agree to include one another," to, "If everyone has 100 points to spend on a character than the impact on game-events is kept fairly close to parity."

Which method is selected is clearly going to depend on tons of other things, most of which get all GNS-y pretty quickly. And I know this topic may still be iffy to some, but I think this whole business of thinking about the character's Metagame (player's ability to diddle outcomes; various goals; etc) as well as Effectiveness & Resource (hit points, roll-to-hit, spell list) goes a long way toward helping any "balance" technique to achieve that uber-goal.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote:
It seems to me that most of us are agreeing quite well on the general concept that participation and the ability to contribute to play-events is the key variable.

The trouble is, methods to achieve that are as various as the day is long, ranging from, "Well, we all just agree to include one another," to, "If everyone has 100 points to spend on a character than the impact on game-events is kept fairly close to parity."

Ron Edwards wrote:
Which method is selected is clearly going to depend on tons of other things, most of which get all GNS-y pretty quickly. And I know this topic may still be iffy to some, but I think this whole business of thinking about the character's Metagame (player's ability to diddle outcomes; various goals; etc) as well as Effectiveness & Resource (hit points, roll-to-hit, spell list) goes a long way toward helping any "balance" technique to achieve that uber-goal.

I'm going to stick with my stance that avatarism is a key componant to causing unhappy game unbalance (opposed to players having fun in an unbalanced game) that no system mechanic can fix. I'll define what the term avatarism represents to me though.

Avatarism= a player rating their success/fun based on their character becoming the 'star of the show'. This isn't dissing Gamism, because what I'm talking about isn't at all the same thing. Avatarism is, to me, a psychological need to have your character obtain the status as 'the best'- be it the smartest, strongest, most powerful, sexiest, because by being the best *character* you prove that you are the best *player* and therefore deserving of respect by the other players. Its an unconscious thing where player A will go to any lengths to compete with player B and player C and have their character acknowledged by all as superior, and therefore, acknowledging them as the superior player. By the same token, the avatarist who's character is a "sidekick" or "supporting character" during an important scene or game session feels like they are being treated unfairly and are unwanted or not intelligent, etc.,

With this kind of thinking going on, the player or players involved aren't actually seeking Game Balance and will find loopholes in any mechanic. I don't have any major problems with people playing like that, as long as they're happy, their fellow players are happy, the GM is happy, yada yada.

People who like sharing the spotlight, who don't equate character achievement=player achievement or who are focussed on group-supporting goals of any flavor of GNS are more likely to be happier players and can find better, more congenial game 'balance' with a more varied group of power level characters than any group containing one or more avatarist ever will, no matter what mechanics the GM utilizes.

Epoch wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: I often come back to the Lois and Clark: the New Adventures of Superman model

I think that it's an extremely dubious proposition to ever use non-RPG examples as a way of showing how non-standard game/play balance can "work."

Epoch wrote: I think that systems should always attempt to provide some kind of game balance.

Epoch wrote: You can always throw out a points cap for characters, or just tell the players to fill out the character sheet with whatever arbitrary numbers they want. Ultimately, without some concept of "balance," a system for character generation is silly.

Le Joueur wrote:

Epoch wrote: I think that systems should always attempt to provide some kind of game balance.

And I don't. I have never seen 'game balance' even work 'on the field' the way it's intended by the designers. At best, it's totally arbitrary, and at worse, completely nonsensical. Normally, 'game balancing' mechanics always seem out of touch with play. Not only that, but whatever the designer deemed 'valuable' never stays as such, changing as the values change in the situation. (Take a combat character onto the floor of the senate and tell me all his points are 'balanced' versus his combat 'weak' politician friend.)

Le Joueur wrote:

Epoch wrote: You can always throw out a points cap for characters, or just tell the players to fill out the character sheet with whatever arbitrary numbers they want. Ultimately, without some concept of "balance," a system for character generation is silly.

That's exactly what Scattershot does with point caps. Points in Scattershot are a limited measure of mechanical effectiveness and suggestive of niche. Balance, as has been questioned in this thread, is maintained by the social contract to not let any character unfairly overshadow others in a scene they have 'high value' in. So let me go on record simply saying I disagree and that I doubt either of us will move on our positions.

Okay. Those characters are balanced in a game which has roughly equal parts social interaction and combat. There. Wasn't that easy?

joshua neff wrote:

Okay. Those characters are balanced in a game which has roughly equal parts social interaction and combat. There. Wasn't that easy?

Only if the game mechanics facilitate both characters getting equal "to do" time. Otherwise, yes, they're balanced point-wise, but the only guarantee the players have that the combat-oriented character will get as much to do as the social-oriented character (& vice-versa) is by GM fiat &/or social contract between all the players.

joshua neff wrote:
I think I'm with Fang on this one. The whole question of "balance" is problematic, because in what way are we talking about balance? Balanced characters, in that each one was created equally (same number of points, for example). Or are we talking about balanced players, so that each one gets the same amount of "to do", regardless of how "powerful" the characters are (as with, say, Superman & Lois Lane--ignoring the show for the moment & just going by characters).

joshua neff wrote: As a GM, I don't care if all the players are the same "strength". I'm more concerned that they get equal contributions to the story. (Take the forthcoming Buffy RPG from Eden as an example. From what I understand, you can play a Scooby who is much weaker than a Buffy or Spike character. But you'll get more Story Points, to contribute to the story even as you're getting your ass kicked.) & as a player, my concerns are the same--I love to play "sidekick" characters who are les powerful than other characters, as long as I get equal "to do" time. On the other hand, I've played in games in which my character was built on the same number of points, but because I'd put the points in "the wrong places" (i.e., not where the GM planned to have the characters tested), I got left out of the story.

joshua neff wrote: So, yes, balanced characters are in no way really "balanced" without either agreement to have the players get equal "to do" opportunities or written rules to facilitate this. Player balance, not character balance.

It sounds to me like you're saying (doubtless unintentionally, 'cause it seems out of character for you), "Hey, as long as I get my share of what I think's important, I don't give a rat's ass if everyone else has a good time."

joshua neff wrote:
Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. You're right--if I said that, I didn't mean it. But you're also right in guessing that with my group, player balance is more important than character balance. Actually, that applies to most groups I've been in, & every group I've enjoyed playing with. I've had players as me-as-GM if they could use less points than they were given to make their character, because otherwise the character would be "more powerful than I want".

joshua neff wrote: I'm very sure that, as you say, a lot of people currently playing RPGs desire mechanically-balanced characters.

joshua neff wrote:
I don't think that means every or most RPGs should do something to provide for mechanically-balanced characters (or at least go out of their way--to be honest, I'm hard-pressed at the moment to think of many RPGs that don't provide mechanically-balanced characters.

joshua neff wrote: Mike Gentry's Fudge of Cthulhu is the only one I can think of right now that simply says "Make your character as strong or as weak as you want"). Again, I don't think character balance is nearly as important as player balance. I suspect that even among people who are concerned with character balance, they'd still be unhappy if player balance is uneven. But I don't have any hard evidence on that.

joshua neff wrote: I do find your comment about "that's life" to be less than useful. It certainly doesn't strengthen your argument, nor does it do anything to mine & Fang's. Just kind of sits there, not really saying anything.

Okay, I've been invoked enough on this thread, but I am just not following.

For those of us who have trouble paying attention, what was your point? Here are a few from the last article; let me know if I'm getting warm.

Epoch wrote: I want to be very clear on this: Nobody wants mechanically-balanced characters per se. They want efficacy-balanced characters.

Epoch wrote: On the other hand, in my experience, it's more difficult and more likely to produce poor results if serious power disparities are balanced by social contract.

Epoch wrote: Well, one thing I've been trying to emphasize throughout this conversation, and, I think, with frustratingly little response on the other side, is that mechanical balance isn't a goal, it's a technique -- a valuable technique, I think.

Epoch wrote: So I've been trying to say to you and to Fang that yes, it's certainly possible that, even with the best mechanical balance available, you can have unbalanced games. You keep bringing those examples up, and they aren't addressing my points.

Epoch wrote: Again, I don't really see the point of many of the formalized character generation systems out there if not to balance characters? Why not simply say, "Write down whatever stats you want," if balance is truly not a concern?