M. J. Young responded in a topic (Immersive-Relevant Realism (essay)) concerning the issue of game balance/fairness among character types.

An argument that justifies a game system being imbalanced: balanced characters are unrealistic. They don't happen in life. They aren't even representative of good fantasy. No one with a lick of sense thinks that Frodo, Aragorn, Legalos, Boromir, Faramir, Samwise, and Gandalf were all created with the same number of points, nor would we say the same of Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, Obi-wan Kenobi, Princess Leia, R2D2, and C3PO.

However, the statement that "fairness is a foundational issue in all games" assumes that "fairness" has anything like the same meaning in all games. It clearly does not.

In Chess, "fairness" means that each player starts with exactly the same power and options, because each has the same sixteen pieces set in the same arrangement. That's one definition of fair. In Poker, by contrast, each player starts with a completely different hand, based on an entirely random deal of the deck. Fairness in this case is defined by potential and obscurement--that each player is aware that he has as much chance to have been dealt the best hand as the worst, and that no one knows who has the best hand until the cards are laid on the table.

And in both of those games, the conception of "fairness" is based on the fundamental assumption that the players are attempting to beat each other. That is rarely the case in role playing games, in which it is most likely for gamist play to be expressed in players that are attempting to unite their abilities in a combined effort to overcome obstacles created by a referee. In this context, the typical RPG character party is more akin to a football team. What matters is that each participant have strengths that matter to the team. No one pretends that the abilities of the offensive lineman, who is primarily there to stop opposing defensive linemen from sacking the quarterback, are nearly the same or any substitute for those abilities of a quarterback or a running back or an end. Observers generally praise the players who make the touchdowns. The players on the field, though, are quite aware that they need each other's skills, even though some of them have less impressive or varied or unusual skills than others. Nothing here has to be "balanced" for the game to be "fair", as the important question is not whether the players are as able to act as each other, but rather whether the characters as a cooperative are equal to the task set by the referee. This really is a much better picture of the character parties of LotR and Star Wars--not that they are comprised of characters of equal ability, but that they are comprised of characters whose abilities are sufficient for the role they must play in what is to come.

In most role playing games, "balance" and "fairness" have much more to do with ensuring screen time than they have with any inherent value in equally proficient characters. Some other means of ensuring screen time can be just as effective. John Kim's reports of his Buffy the Vampire Slayer play is quite informative on this point, as it appears that character generation empowers weaker characters to create story lines while stronger characters can only respond to them (if I understand aright), thus giving screen time rights to the characters who don't have the power to solve the problems.

I hope this is sufficiently clear. I'm all for "game balance" of the sort you advocate when the game's objectives include character versus character competition, but I think that there are a lot of ways to make imbalanced games not only as fair but more fun.

--M. J. Young

Heya,

I dealt with a very similar thread of ideas in this thread a while back:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12324&highlight=

Mainly, I think that Character Balance (or Balance of Character as I put it) is an ideal for certain Gamist players and a necessary requirement for Narrativist play. The first paragraph in MJ's essay seems to address Simulationist design/play and I totally agree that Balance of Character is unrealistic.

But in the end, fairness is a designer's tool not a player's creation. A designer can make a game "fair" or he can choose not to. It will depend on the style and goal of the game, IMHO.

Peace,

-Troy

Ei, :)

Troy_Costisick wrote: fairness is a designer's tool not a player's creation. A designer can make a game "fair" or he can choose not to. It will depend on the style and goal of the game

Check out Primetime Adventures for an illustrative take on play balance.

The players' mechanical input into the game varies, explicitly, from session to session. Like, in this session I'm rolling 1d, next session I'll be rolling 2d, while this session you're rolling 3d and next session you'll be rolling 1d. That explicitly. But at the same time each player is guaranteed the same overall input as every other player, over the course of the whole game.

Cool stuff.

-Vincent

I think another important point is that character balance and play balance don't have to be lockstepped. If you're playing a party-based game, then yes, they are, but there are other methods of play that aren't that uncommon -- specifically troupe-style play.

The references to Ars Magica in the parent thread are referring to this. Play revolves around a cabal of Medieval mages, but each player is responsible for, at different times, a member of that cabal (who has quite a lot of power in the game world, considering the rarity of magic), several members of that mage's retinue, and Grogs, commoners who handle the grunt work.

In a given session, the raw power of each character may be grossly mismatched. (You might have one adventure involving a mage, his men-at-arms, and the poor sods who get to pry the cart out of the mud.) This is sort of a Lord of the Rings situation, except that over time it's expected that each player will have a chance to play their mage. (I know this is a gross simplification of the system, but it's definately troupe-style.)

Another way play balance and character balance may be separated is with games that don't have a party structure at all. It's possible to intercut between the lives of several different characters, one per player, who cross paths infrequently. In this situation, characters might vary widely in ability, but their competence relative to their own respective challenges are similar.

My personal experiences with "keeping things fair" deal entirely with screentime allocation, which has already been discussed previously. My last campaign included characters such as (a) a dissolute, lecherous con-man with a lot of contacts in the underworld, and (b) a dead woman who could freely jump from host to host, possessing their bodies. There was no question that if the two came to blows, the con-man had no chance at all. But the game was about personality conflicts and the consequences of power, so neither felt slighted.

I think the "big picture" issue here is that the advice you're giving in your various essays is very effective at reinforcing the style of play that you personally enjoy. You're making efforts to avoid types of play you don't enjoy and that you personally find dysfunctional. That's laudable. But there are a lot of styles of play out there, and your advice is not necessarily appropriate for them. I think that's what we're trying to impart to you.

Andrew Norris wrote:
My personal experiences with "keeping things fair" deal entirely with screentime allocation, which has already been discussed previously. My last campaign included characters such as (a) a dissolute, lecherous con-man with a lot of contacts in the underworld, and (b) a dead woman who could freely jump from host to host, possessing their bodies. There was no question that if the two came to blows, the con-man had no chance at all. But the game was about personality conflicts and the consequences of power, so neither felt slighted.

Domhnall wrote: I’d like to hear again from M. J. asking him to start by stating detailed definitions of “imbalance/balance," and “fair”.

Domhnall wrote: His post asserts (if I am reading his correctly) that character-type (or “class”) equality is only warranted in competition-style (“Gamist”) RPG settings. I’m trying to refrain from any conclusion until I think more about this issue, but would like to hear other responses as well.

Noon wrote: Buffy comes to mind.

Sidestepping a bit in order to provide a point of comparison:

Every larp writer either quickly learns to utilize a system of narrative balance or has a very short career. What this means is that in a larp, every character has to be provided with an equal amount of story elements they can participate, but there doesn't have to be any equality between character attributes or between the scale of the given plots. Thus the weak peasant who has family trouble and the scheming Grand Vizier are considered narratively balanced as long as both have as many things to do. Note that the Vizier almost certainly has much more directorial control over the course of things, but would only be considered a "better character" by players with Gamist and/or escapist tendencies. (Both of whom are often seen as "problem players who are completely missing the point" within experiential larp circles.) This system of course breaks down if the entire structure of the game has been designed to primarily support a Gamist approach, be it Killer or any "Let's go to the woods and play hack'n'slash" larp.

As far as tabletop is concerned, I mostly agree with what's been said here already.

-Jiituomas

Heya

I think the call for fairness, is a call for equal directorial power.

Troy has it.

"Balance" always comes down to ensuring that each player has an approximately equal opportunity to be creative using the creative agenda. Now, that doesn't mean that the methods have to be the same to provide these opportunities, as Buffy shows. It just means that the different methods have to be satisfactory to the player in terms of how it allows them to participate.

For example, in D&D Gamism, the cleric doesn't tend to have as much to do in a fight as others do. Bless spell just doesn't seem to add as much as doing 1d8 damage with a longsword. It's the cleric's out-of-combat abilities that are where they shine. Some people like playing the cleric, some don't. To the extent that nobody wants to play the cleric, or any other type of character division in any other game, it could be said that that type of character is unbalanced.

Mike

Troy_Costisick wrote:

I think the call for fairness, is a call for equal directorial power.

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.

Personally, I feel that none of these are strictly necessary. While some players feel that #1 is important, there are many players who are less agressive or controlling about the game -- who are fine with taking the back seat a little more often. So I disagree that balance is necessary, and that desire for balance is all one preference.

ffilz wrote: Ultimately what matters is that each player be happy with their contribution to the game and their payoff from the game. But it is valuable to consider the various ways that imbalance is perceived and be willing to address them. Of course satisfying some players needs may dissatisfy others, so ultimately the whole group has to participate, and ideally the social contract addresses this explicitly (I'm amazed by the number of people who claim that since ultimately your responsible for your own fun that they don't owe you a lick of consideration - every man for himself).

Troy_Costisick wrote: 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.

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

Heya,

James Holloway wrote:

Noon wrote:
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.

John Kim wrote: 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.

James Holloway wrote:

Noon wrote:
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.

Noon wrote:

James Holloway wrote:

Noon wrote:
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.

I wrote: 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 wrote: Ie, you have directorial powers equal to your characters powers.

Noon wrote: 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).

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.

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

Mike Holmes wrote:
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

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.

The God of the Machine wrote: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The God of the Machine wrote: 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.

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 God of the Machine wrote: Characters aren't directors, they're 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.

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"

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.

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!"

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

The God of the Machine wrote: Ha ha ha. No, I don't monopolize games with my encyclopaedic collection of plot hooks. I play them, and my play r0x0rs.

The God of the Machine wrote: if one OCC was IMPLAUSABLY buffer than another would be another flaw in the system. If it was implausible.

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.

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

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

OliverTheMerc wrote: 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.

OliverTheMerc wrote: 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.

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.

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

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.

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

Are we saying that Spotlight time = Balance/Fairness?

John kim wrote: 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.

M. J. Young wrote: 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.

Kat Miller wrote: Are we saying that Spotlight time = Balance/Fairness?

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

Kat Miller wrote: (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.

James Holloway wrote:

Kat Miller wrote: 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."

Noon wrote:
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.

John Kim wrote:

OliverTheMerc wrote: 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.

OliverTheMerc wrote:
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.

As far as Balance as a design goal; I think that Balance should be considered and accepted or rejected with purpose. To design a game with out considering Balance leads to unpolished products and gripes about "needed more play testing" However a well designed game may be unbalanced with good reason.

I concede that Spotlight doesn't equal balance.

Would Creative Input work instead?

Do different CAs need different approaches to balance?

John kim wrote:

kat miller wrote: (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.

John Kim wrote: 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.

OliverTheMerc wrote: The point I was trying to make (in admittedly vague terms) is that a system should give players equal opportunity to participate the CA.

Kat Miller wrote: As far as Balance as a design goal; I think that Balance should be considered and accepted or rejected with purpose. To design a game with out considering Balance leads to unpolished products and gripes about "needed more play testing" However a well designed game may be unbalanced with good reason.

Kat Miller wrote: I concede that Spotlight doesn't equal balance.

Would Creative Input work instead?

Do different CAs need different approaches to balance?

Kat Miller wrote: I disagree that expanded point three is not about Input. At some point the player had to offer input about what they thought was cool or all the Gm's effort would be wasted on the player, The Gm might have thought the description of the battle was cool but if that’s not the kind of thing "shy" player thought was cool then the GM was just entertaining himself.

Also points 2 and 3 put the burden of enjoyable play squarely on the shoulder of the gm. A Good GM can evoke a sense of balance no matter what the game, but is it really a good idea for designers rely on the GMs sense of balance?

Kat Miller wrote: Also I'm thinking that Creative Input = Impact on play.

Meaning I can be out of the scene and share an idea that would be cool or interesting and it gets put into play, I've just had Creative Input because what I said had Impact on play.

I can create a tough Character with lots of power and while I don't really talk much and stand back in the shadows a lot (me describing the "my guy is standing in the shadows" is creative Input) when Combat happens and I get to step up, my action have Impact- also Creative Input, yes?.

OK... I think the easiest way to do this is for me just to describe our gaming paradigm, and then ask the Forge veterans which categories (of yours) that I fit into (if it is just one).

Here are our basics: We agree that players should be given equal shares of the attention (spotlighting) in play. To accomplish this from the beginning it is the responsibility of the GM to create tales (major arc and subplots) that entwine each PC. As the game progresses the different skills of the PCs keep them alive and succeeding in their goals, and the tales involve the PCs so that each remains (ideally) equally involved.

But, we also hate the feeling of “contrivance”, which seems to be what I am hearing many say is acceptable and useful. What I mean is an instance in the game when it looks like the GM is “making up” reasons for a particular PC to become suddenly very useful. Now I can hear the roar of objection that “it is all made up!” already. So, I must relay our group’s high expectation (and need) of plausibility. I agree that the tale/campaign is “made up” if you mean “created”. But the type of gaming that is plausible is the type that is most immersive, and therefore deeply enjoyable (at the very least to our group).

Perhaps this relates to our group’s very strong need for PC free-will, and honest cause and effect. All of us hate the feeling that PCs are being led around by the nose. We hate the idea that the GM would “tweak” a scenario to make it the case for a player to be (implausibly) more useful than he actually is. Our group wants to feel that from the word “go” that their actions are being handled with strict fairness and that the GM didn’t “fudge” either scenarios or results to make a character inconsistently useful just to spread around time in the spotlight.

This differs from the way good literature is written. There, the author controls everything. If he writes his tale well then the skills of each character do not need to equal out (“weak” Frodo can succeed via unplanable twists of Fate where all others would have failed [as part of JRRT’s narrative]). But in gaming, the will of each player must be taken into consideration. We hate the “Illusion” of free-will, and reject GMs trying to fool a player into thinking that some “suddenly unique need” existed that only that PC could fulfill if it felt artificial (that is, highly improbable). Conversely, we would hate it if a character of great skill were inhibited by GM directorial intervention merely to “spread around” the light. (EG, a GM directs a player who could effortlessly slay the 5 orcs attacking them to "take it easy" on them so that the others have a chance to shine.)

And so, this brings me back to my systemic balancing issue. With the above stipulations of Free-Will, Causes-Effect, Plausibility, “hands-off” GMing, etc., character ability-equality seems to be required to plausibly “share the light”.

Now, I am not talking about the tale which the PCs are involved in WRT equal attention. That part of the equality is the task of the GM from the time he created the story and integrated each PC into it. And the PCs dialogue with each other naturally and have equal time there. But, when it comes time for action if one character is far weaker than the others, the “weak” one is left out of the equality unless the GM intervenes in ways that some of you have described.

I am sure that my group is not a “gamist” one. We’re not there to Powergame, or even just to “win”. We love immersively playing our characters consistently. What we hate is the feeling of “GM intrusion” (for any reason), which steps on our free-will toes, or which damages the plausibility of the tale.

All of that being said, A) what Forge categories am I describing, and B) taking our presuppositions of gaming (our Social Contract), am I right that systemic character balance must be preserved?

Thanks.

James Holloway wrote:

Noon wrote:
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."

Hi Daniel,

It just sounds like you hate illusionism.

Can I sound you out on something? Do the following seem different?

GM "Uh, Grimwald the super fighter can't quite get to the five orks, so the other guys will have to have the limelight on this fight"

Vs.

Player A "I spend five director stance points so Grimwald can't get into this fight because of (insert extremely plausible description from player)."
Player B (owner of Grimwald) "That sounds reasonable, I wont counter that with my own director stance points"

Noon wrote: I'll be subversive and suggest that many players are just happy with their turn, because that's all they think is possible.

Noon wrote:
Can I sound you out on something? Do the following seem different?

GM "Uh, Grimwald the super fighter can't quite get to the five orks, so the other guys will have to have the limelight on this fight"

Vs.

Player A "I spend five director stance points so Grimwald can't get into this fight because of (insert extremely plausible description from player)."
Player B (owner of Grimwald) "That sounds reasonable, I wont counter that with my own director stance points"

Simulationism: the right to dream wrote: what matters is that within the system, causality is clear, handled without metagame intrusion and without confusion on anyone's part.

Well, not I said "some but not all," not even "most." I'm just saying that I think a lot of the cross-talk going on here is because people are projecting their own groups' expectations onto others. I applaud Daniel's most recent post, in which he talks about the specific needs of his particular group.

If I read Daniel and his group right, they would find this mechanic very intrusive indeed. They sound like classic dyed-in-the-wool immersionist Simulationists.

Player A "I spend five director stance points so Grimwald can't get into this fight because of (insert extremely plausible description from player)."
Player B (owner of Grimwald) "That sounds reasonable, I wont counter that with my own director stance points"

Player A "I spend five tactics points my tactics skill gives me, which means Grimwald can't get into this fight ahead of us as described in the skill."
Player B (owner of Grimwald) "Grimwald wouldn't use his 'run in bezerk!' to counter that, at the moment, because it wouldn't suit him."

Noon wrote: Hi Daniel,
It just sounds like you hate illusionism.
Can I sound you out on something? Do the following seem different?

GM "Uh, Grimwald the super fighter can't quite get to the five orks, so the other guys will have to have the limelight on this fight"
-Vs.
Player A "I spend five director stance points so Grimwald can't get into this fight because of (insert extremely plausible description from player)."
Player B (owner of Grimwald) "That sounds reasonable, I wont counter that with my own director stance points"

Noon wrote: And on a side point, although pushing expectations onto others is a bad thing, immersionist play has a tendancy to kill off real life communication between players. While we should support others play styles, I see immersionist play as being self destructive to itself, the deeper the immersion sought. If any help is asked for with such a play style, what can you offer but to push expectations that don't revolve around self distructive play?
PS: Only refering to immersion that starts killing off RL communication, as destructive.

Domhnall wrote:
Yes, a lot of work is necessary for the GM. But, this has always been expected. And I do not see how our structure would work any other way.

Hi folks,

It's time for this thread to be closed and for the very fruitful sub-topics to be taken to their own, new threads for more focused discussion.

Best,
Ron