I have always had an interest in games where the players have complete (or near complete) control over what happens to their characters when they level up (perhaps the best example of this is BESM, where upon leveling up, the character gains a set number of points, and can spend these points on whatever abilities they want).  I am currently working on two games with this philosophy (a RPG, and a RPG/strategy war game hybrid).  The problem that I’ve often encountered in these, however, is that it is extremely easy to Min/Max characters.  Also, I have had some trouble in the past with certain abilities being much more important and valuable (especially during combat) than others. 

So, here is my question: What can I do as a designer to keep my game balanced?  I know that the obvious answer is test-playing, and I do plan on doing that.  However, I’m sure that there must be things I can do before that (it woulb be nice to shave a few iterations off of the test-playing process).  One thing I’ve done is create a computer simulation (a genetic algorithm of sorts, if you know what that is) to determine if there is an optimal balance between advancing in health, defense, or attack, however this does not take into account the wide variety of abilities that character can gain.  Are there other types of simulations I could try running, or are there other ways of determining whether certain abilities are too powerful?  For the RPG/strategy game, I’ve considered putting a fully or partially random level-up system (i.e. Fully- when you level up, you roll on a table to determine whether you gain d6 hit points, +1 attack, or an ability.  Partially I- when you level up, you roll on a table to determine whether you boost your attack and defense, boost your magic ability in various ways, or gain an ability, though you may choose just how many advancement points are put into, say, attack vs. defense.  Partially II- When you level up, you may advance in whatever you like.  However, if you choose to gain an ability rather than a stat boost, the ability is chosen at random by rolling on a table of your choosing).  This way, if certain abilities are stronger than others it is less bad, because characters cannot chose to take only the strong abilities.  The other idea I have had is to steal an idea from paper/rock/scissors, and make every ability have a downside (however, this is somewhat hard to do), or make several ways of hurting a character (i.e. if the character puts lots of points into protecting themselves physically, it will leave them open to magic). 

So, to summarize, what I am looking for is either an algorithm or other method I can use to determine when particular abilities are unbalanced (basically saving the play-testers time by eliminating the first set of unbalanced rules), or a mechanism I can put into the rules to regulate power.  I am trying to create a system that allows for a wide variety of characters.  The main thing I am trying to avoid is a system in which there is an optimal character (or even in which there are 3 or 4 optimal characters), in which anyone who shows creativity/individuality and deviates from this is worse off for it.  Any suggestions?

Simon

PS Thanks in advance!

Welcome to the Forge, Simon.

Ah, few years ago I've been standing exactly where you're stuck today. The problem is, the kind of balance you seek is practically unachievable with the traditional methods, at least not perfect balance. It's simply a wild goose chase. The model represented by HERO, GURPS, BESM (or BESM d20 for that matter) and their innumerable clones is a dead end - many designers dive into that depth and try to build something different/better/more balanced/more realistic/whatever using the same principles, but it's the principles themselves what hinders them in reaching that goal.

(Or, maybe it is possible, but no one created a system that would be balanced that way using games like BESM for a model, yet - and I imagine that the work would be titanic, even with the help of computer algorithms etc.)

The main inherent problems of this design model are:

-abilities with inconsistent effects (both mechanically and in the way they affect game world/story/tactical situation/whatever you are concerned about). If you have abilities with different effects, one of them will always be more useful in a specific situation. Unless you make sure that during every sessions of the game, in every group, with every GM, players encounter exactly the same mix of situations (and this is certainly possible, if you limit the scope of the game enough and require the GM to provide specific set of situations in specific amounts) - one of the abilities will be more optimal in a given group, in a given campaign and/or with a given GM.

-abilities may "combo" with different abilities in ways you can never fully predict, as this is also partially dependent on in-game situations that arise in a specific game. Thus, different sets of abilities work together better, making those combinations more optimal. It's almost impossible to weed out all unwanted combining in a traditionally designed "BESM-like" game, even with the help of computer algorithms - no program will recombine stuff as cleverly as the player can, especially that no program will ever take into account all possible situations in which they can be used.

-since different abilities/stats/skills/whatever are never useful exactly to the same extent, trying to objectively assign them Character Points (or what have you) costs is futile - it will always be arbitrary. What's more, trying to find some criteria that would allow for exact pricing is futile - it always looks good on the paper, but in actual play you go back to the problem of more optimal combinations.

-even basic stats, skills, resource pools like hp or magic points or what have you, won't be fully balanced, ever, in any traditionally designed game - although they can be roughly equally useful. This is the easiest part, I think - as long as you make sure that there are no stats/skills/whatever the lack of which wouldn't make any difference for every character (in every group, with every GM, in any campaign, as long as the game is played "by the book", mind you), it won't be possible to min-max one area without hurting yourself in some other area.

I think I pretty much summed it up, although there are certainly some factors I omitted, and from a different point of view it obviously looks different ;)

Now, the question is, how important to you is mechanical differentiation of abilities (cause it's one of those things you can trip on forever)? If you could live with traits that work differently on a story level, but are treated exactly the same by the system, and are exactly as useful mechanically, I can point at some games that may give you fresh look at the problem (I assume you're familiar mainly with traditionally designed games, right?).

First of all, if you're not familiar with the concept of conflict resolution, you should check it out. Even if you don't really want CR in your game, you may benefit by analysing games where it is used (even if only to know how things can work if done differently). Many games that use various iterations of this method allow for using the same basic procedure for every possible situation that is worth resolving mechanically. Also the mechanical procedure itself often occurs on a level that is disconnected from representing how things work in the game world enough to make the problem of more optimal abilities irrelevant.

Take a look at The Pool - it's one of the simplest games that utilise CR out there. Due to my personal preference I don't really like it, and I wouldn't call it perfect, but it's simplicity makes it easy to observe and analyse it's mechanical solutions. Many good (and much more complex) games list The Pool as one of the main inspirations. Every possible conflit of interests in the game is resolved by one roll - and the roll itself doesn't determine what happens on an action-by-action basis, but rather who decides what is the result of the whole conflict of interests (note how the procedure is disconnected from the details of the situation - and consequently "immune" for the "no detailed rule for that in the book" issue of many games). All abilities in the game are defined by the player, and work in exactly the same way mechanically - they simply increase the chances of winning conflicts that occur in a particular story context. "Perfect warrior", "stealthy ninja" and "good cook" traits are generally balanced there - all have exactly the same potential to be used by the player to his advantage.

Capes is a good example of a game in which characters are generally well balanced. Capes character is created by prioritizing certain number of abilities in three categories (Skills/Powers, Attitudes, and Styles that are kind of like specialised manifestations of Skills/Powers/Attitudes). The thing is, abilities are completely freeform, and can be freely defined by the players (there are ready to use character modules with listed abilities in the game, but they serve mostly as a shortcut and example). There is slight mechanical differentiation of abilities, as Powers and Attitudes have different usage limits, and Styles can be defined as powered or non-powered, and generally powered abilities are much more useful - but it still pays to have some non-powered ones. What really matters in the game is the number attached to the ability, not the specifics of the ability itself. Mechanical procedure uses ability values in the same way, regardless of their nature in the story. On the story level, it makes great difference whether the character has "Laser beams 4" or "Caring mother 4" traits, as they will produce completely different feel - but mechanically they are exactly equal, as any ability can be used in any situation (though sometimes it may require the player to find some smart way of stretching things, which is fun in itself). Also, there is no such thing as most optimal ability in Capes - character's use the same matrix of values (1/2/3/4/5 in one category, 1/2/3/4 in the other and 1/2/3 in the last), and there are limits of ability usage that make it impossible to always utilise only one of them.

Dogs in the Vineyard is another game you could check - an example of very workable system utilizing freeform traits in a way that makes them all exactly as optimal mechanically, but still producing characters that are differentiated on the story level, and feel completely different in action.

Hope that helps ;)

I'm glad you're addressing this because I see the same thing happening in every RPG that I play or run. You can tell the players to balance their characters and it never works. It boils down to how much damange I can produce and absorb. That's it. Especially when a player is all excited about their character and they haven't selected a name, origin or background.

Here's an alternative. For a skill-based system, this would work great. Categorize the skills by their true gaming situation use with one of the categories being "Combat". As characters gain experience, they must spend points equally in all the categories. No exceptions. In most games I've played there are situations that involve combat, problem-solving and social interaction. I can think of very few instances where it involves anything else. So, each character of the same experience would have equal sums in all three categories, but they can choose which skills to increase in those categories. Its ok to max/min within a category, but now they have skills that are useful in other gaming situations.

For abilities just place them in physical and mental groups. They have 37 points to distribute among STR, DEX and CON. They have another 37 points to distribute among INT, WIS and CHA. For the weighted method just assign 16 points to each group. Abilities must be 6 to 18 before racial adjustments.

I think most players would like this, since it affects all the characters equally. Players, you now have a character that gives you role-playing opportunities. GMs, you can involve NPCs that are more than just combat targets. Power-gamers, you may cross your arms and pout until combat begins.

Troy

Hi there,

I came across the same problem when I was developing my own games. Level systems were never something I enjoyed, as it seemed to take to long for characters to become stronger. The way that I found works best is to give out experience points as you would normally do, and then simply allow the players to spend the points on ANYTHING that can be upgraded on their character sheets (Attributes, spells, and so on). Only make the option to purchase such upgrades at certain times, like at the end of an adventure or right before they enter a periolous area.

In my game (Gaia Saga), players begin the character creation process in the same way. The game has a default amount of experience points that characters begin the game with (usually 30,000 in my case), and I just let them go crazy and buy what they want until all the points are exhausted. The way that this works in my game at least is I set a price for each individual attribute point (Strength, Dexterity, etc.) based upon what jobs the player has chosen for the character, that way they known how many points they need to upgrade them with.

Its a simple way to ignore a level system altogether, and I have found out through play testing that players really enjoy modifying their characters this way as they can pretty much send their characters evolution in any direction they want, giving them close to 100% freedom when it comes to their characters. (I say close because it still needs to be moderated by a GM, but we all knew that :P )

Hope that helps you at least a little bit.

- Bill

    Thanks.  Both are interesting ideas.  I do really like your idea about requiring points to go into both combat and skill sets.  I might consider that as an improvement to my RPG (currently called “Dark Days”).  The big issue I’d have with that is how to work magic into that system (since that could be considered either combat or non-combat).  However, this still don’t help with the RPG/strategy war game (which has the working title “Game X”), though it has made me think more deeply about my position. 
    I suppose that much my target audience for the Game X is power gamers, which is in part why I am so worried about making a balanced rule system.  I think I misstated my position earlier in wanting all characters to have equal power no matter what.  I realize that this will be an impossibility, and in many ways don’t mind if a character is punished for putting all of their ability points into improving their savings throws (making them immune to magic and poison, but easily killed by a single arrow).  What I am trying to avoid is this: during an early game of Dark Days, everyone put a roughly equal number of ability points into combat ability.  I realized that by far the most powerful character in a fight was the one who spent all of his ability points to increase his strength.  Mainly, when I create Game X, I want to make sure that everyone who plays won’t make a party of only strength-based fighters. 
    You do make a good point in that a system like this won’t be perfect, not by far.  I suppose my aim is to make Game X as balanced as a CCG.  I think this analogy is similar in a lot of ways.  To use Magic as an example, in Magic, you are pretty much allowed to put together any set of 60 cards that you want, and there are a huge number of possibilities.  This doesn’t mean that every deck will perform well (indeed, if you have only black spells and only gain red mana, you’re screwed).  Some decks will inevitably be better than others.  Also, some decks will have the advantage over than others in a non-monotonic way (i.e. counterspell deck beats creature deck beats burn deck beats counterspell deck).  However, there are still a huge number of unique decks out there, that can all do fairly well (or, at least that’s the aim, even though that idea fails from time to time when everyone makes a Sly deck).  That even though there are some decks that may be optimal, there are enough optimal and near-optimal decks that there is still a huge amount of variety in the game. 
    As to Filip’s comments…

Filip wrote:
-abilities with inconsistent effects (both mechanically and in the way they affect game world/story/tactical situation/whatever you are concerned about). If you have abilities with different effects, one of them will always be more useful in a specific situation.

Filip wrote:
-abilities may "combo" with different abilities in ways you can never fully predict, as this is also partially dependent on in-game situations that arise in a specific game.

Filip wrote:
-even basic stats, skills, resource pools like hp or magic points or what have you, won't be fully balanced, ever, in any traditionally designed game - although they can be roughly equally useful. This is the easiest part, I think - as long as you make sure that there are no stats/skills/whatever the lack of which wouldn't make any difference for every character... it won't be possible to min-max one area without hurting yourself in some other area.

I think Filip has done a very good job of outlining the reasons that such "points buy" systems often fail, and some non-traditional ways of dealing with that.  T\His advise would be well taken to heart.  If you're dead set on a traditional style game, with a point buy mechanic, I think it would pay to look at how other games have "got around" the problem successfully.

Take a look at two popular games, d20 D&D, and my personal favorite, Savage Worlds.  It's worth noting that in both these systems, the inevitability that some combinations of abilities with be superior in most situations, and many abilities are superior in some situations.  The designers have acknowledged this - it's not a bug, it's a feature.  Discovering and choosing these combinations is an enjoyable part of play for some players.  With that in mind, they have taked very different approaches to game balsnce.

d20 D&D acknowledges that there are some abilities which everyone is going to want, all the time.  For these abilities, they have removed choice.  A fighter's hit points always increase, a wizard always gets more spells.  By limiting choices to less powerful options, d20 D&D has cut down on the extent to which "min maxing" can damage people's enjoyment of the game, while allowing for those who enjoy "playing to win" to discover powerful combinations.  (It's also worth noting that they playtest the heck out of everything, to maintain balance between options as best they can)

Savage Worlds has gone a different path, allowing complete choice about how a character advances.  They've tried to circumvent "min maxing" however, by making every choice useful.  In combat, every "stat" is useful, even "Smarts", and especially "Spirit".  There's no throwaway "Charisma".  What is more, skills have been pared down to a minimum.  Their adage is, if it's not used at least every other session, and preferably at least once a session, it shouldn't be a skill.  If a player "maxes out" one ability, inevitably so other, important ability suffers.  Choosing what your character can do well, and where you'll have to rely on others, is a major part of the fun of the game, for some players.

So, while I agree that point buy character creation is problematic, and inevitably leads to the possibility of "min maxing", that's not always a "bug".  Also, there are several ways (as demonstrated above) of minimising the impact of this on your game.

Hi Simon,

Simons wrote: Mainly, when I create Game X, I want to make sure that everyone who plays won’t make a party of only strength-based fighters.

Hello,

Callan wrote:
What's wrong with PC's who are all clones of each other?

I think weve had plenty of ways around this in the thread, without actually asking why it would be a bad thing to begin with.

I'm pretty sure you wont get a solution until you know exactly what the problem is. You can't heal a desease you can't name >:)

And Bill (who posted while I was writing this), I am really intrigued by what you did.  It sounds fairly similar to what Dark Days is like (basically instead of gaining levels, characters advance by receiving ability points, which they receive whenever the GM feels like giving them out).  What do you do to keep a system like that under control?  And when you say “I set a price for each individual attribute point,” do you mean you set that a Strength of 5 costs 20 points, Strength 6 costs +5 points, Strength 7 costs +8 points, etc, or something else?  If it is that, how do you stop your game from being overbearingly complicated?  Also, how do you fairly assign point values for each ability increase?

Anyways, thanks again, and Happy Halloween!

I think that doing a random level up is a bad idea.  Nothing frustrates players more than not being able to control their own characters.  Same with forcing players to spread their level up options between stats and skills.

Here is an alternative:  If you are worried about some skills being better than others, have a logarithmic level up cost.  IE raising a skill from 2 to 3 would take 3 points, while 5 to 6 would take 6 points.  Even if you aren't doing scales, you can still use this method.  Classify the skills into different areas, and increase the cost to buy new skills in that area for each skill already purchased.  This allows people to specialize if they want, but penalizes them for power gaming.

I have had to handle this very issue, in GLASS, because it's an open-ended, points-based system. Balance is difficult, but it is not unattainable.

First, you must have a baseline or a gauge of what is fundamentally important in your rules/simulation. For GLASS, as it is a live action system, I did not need mechanics for doing the usual walking and talking and socializing. What I *did* need was a way to enable players to safely do combat, and a way to gauge how long someone lasts in combat. All other "conflict resolution" is irrelevant (at this point).

Second, you must be cognizant of how a given ability boils down mechanically, in play. As my fundamental measure, I chose "instant death"--that is, how much should it cost to be able to make someone die instantly, all other things being equal. To decide *that* I had to determine an "average" health level. Once I had determined the cost to buy that health, then I could determine the cost to buy the slay. I happened to choose to double it, because I want a game that makes defense easier/less costly than offense, mainly to keep folks in conflicts longer (though I have other reasons).

Finally, I had to consider situational elements that could not be handled with acting, combat, or natural movement. Basically, I needed to enable GMs to create obstacles or challenges without having to do all the work to actually build such a challenge (for example, a "computer hacking" challenge should not require the GMs to make a PC and a user interface and a file system and a security system and a...). SO I "bolted on" (for lack of a better way to put it) a set of abilities that deal only with particular classes of situations.

And that's all I needed, because I am a Design What Doesn't Matter proponent. GMs and players could go on to act out whatever world or situations they desired, with my system as a common baseline for balancing players against each other, for fairness and for ease of transfer between different games (ex: I could run the same "mage" in any fantasy or magic-heavy setting).

As for your concerns about people making the One True Uber Character, drop them. THAT's a red herring, to try to prevent MinMax within any kind of flexible system. And here's why: *There is no such min-max character!*

Take a moment and re-read that. There is NO such thing as an uber character within a particular system. Now, within a particular system, played in a particular setting, and with a specific set of situations predominating: yes, there IS an uber character for that. Hence the reason most MMORPGs suffer from the Ogg Mage Syndrome: they are VERY limited system (fight or sneak), in VERY narrow situations (get more loot), in even narrower settings (fantasy world with monsters around every corner and behind every bush, but little else in the way of situations). Of course there's a minmax for that; it's a ludicrously tiny petri dish filled with thousands of competing viruses: of course one will out as the best.

But live (table top or live action) RPGs are a totally different beast. You could make ANY kind of uber character in ANY system, sit down at the table with me, and feel totally gimpy. Doesn't matter what you did to minmax: I could whoop that character (should I so desire) in a hundred different ways. Make the uber fighter, and you find yourself in a courtly intrigue story where drawing that broadsword +2 will soon land you in a dungeon or dead. Make the sneaky rogue, and find yourself in a story of warring mages. It's rock/paper/scissors, just like you said: there is no way to be perfect in every situation; and a minmaxer just insures that there will be even fewer situations in which he will be useful at all.

Long story short: figure out what you HAVE to model, don't model anything else, and don't worry about synergistic effects. The GM can handle anything, even a guy who only has a hammer and, therefore, sees all problems as nails.
HTH;
David