I don't believe that the title of this thread does a good job of explaining what this thread is about. Excuse my naming ability. The topic in hand is designing two or more character "archtypes" under which all sub-classifications of character reside. For example, let's say that there is a "faction" system with two factions to choose from. Which faction you choose governs some aspects of your character's capabilities, maybe even what classes are open to that character. The question is this: how do you balance such a system? For example, let's take a science vs magic concept. Both sides have similar class options -both have a type of fighter, ranger, rogue, etc.- but each side grants distinct advantages over the other choice. How would you design bonuses for each faction that benefit each class equally? Say, the science side gets a bonus to range. Obviously the melee fighters won't benefit much from this, thus a range bonus would be a bad idea. In a standard system, what bonuses would benefit all classes to a relatively equal degree?

Note: this has nothing to do with my samurai game, it's just something that suddenly came into my mind and I am interested in seeing what you guys have to say on the subject

One gets a bonus to range the other gets a bonus to ranged accuracy.

Balance them by giving different bonuses to the same attributes, and then even if one faction is a bit more appealing than another (say the characters often operate at extreme ranges so accuracy is less desirable than raw grid range) for a specific character archetype you at least aren't completely shorting them.

Seriously...have a look at Jason Godesky's recent Game Chef entry...Red Land, Black Land...It does a great job of providing an entire game in the framework of two traits that oppose on another. It's a nice simple game that I'll be playing soon...with a bit of extra tweaking I think it could be brilliant.

Hi,

There's alot of emphasis on being 'balanced' in RPG discussions.

Why is the idea of balance (whatever it is) at all significant?

Think of it like Street Fighter. Everyone just uses Sagat because he's broken as hell. Thus, the game is unbalanced.
Balance is having all classes or build options having equal potential.

Well, I'm not sure that's necessary in a game which doesn't cater to a Gamist perspective . . .

I mean if you're going for a Simulationist approach the what matters is how the world and the characters exist, and being OP isn't going to appeal to everyone.

Narration is going to be more interested in what a character is doing and their struggles internally or externally . . . the OPness of a specific option again does not come into play as much.

But if you're thinking on . . . even in a Gamist situation if archetypes come into play then you've got an impetus to NOT just play one thing, since the mix might work poorly.

I get that you want two sides to appeal equally. As I said, affect traits in a good but different way. But really, ask yourself if the type of gameplay the system is meant to cover really requires you to balance things at all. Asymmetrical doesn't suck (always, at least) . . .

Different kinds of people can play the same game. The people looking for balance will point out the OPness of the OP thing and bitch about it, thus detracting from the overall experience. OP characters will own the battlefield and thus gain an inevitable sense of importance over the other PCs, since they're the one getting shit done simply because they're mechanically better than everyone else.

Now were getting down to it.

Considered segregated tasks? Ala Frodo taking the ring to mount doom. No one else could do it - they could help, but they couldn't actually do the task. Mechanically certain objectives could be segregated, that only a certain character can complete and also they can only be helped so far (can't carry Frodo all the way to mount doom)

Balance just doesn't seem to have anything to do with story, if generating story is something your shooting for. Destiny, or a guy getting stuck doing something and no one else can help him, that's story stuff. Putting effort into trying to balance stuff just seems to be putting your effort into something not to do with the story generation your interested in (assuming you want that).

Maybe I need a paradigm shift, but to me balance is a major priority.

If there are mechanical choices you can make, and those choices matter to your sense of fun, those choices better be, for practical purposes at least, equivalent in strategic value. If no strategic choices are being made, they need to be equivalent in mechanical value.

... actually, let's put it this way; if you make rules for something, those rules needs to be fair. If you want someone playing Gandalf and someone playing Pippin in the same party, you either give Pippin "luck points" or something to match up to Gandalf or else you shouldn't make rules that would differentiate them in terms of power or ability. The only other option is to have mature players who are okay with power discrepancies.

Is that gamist thinking? Probably. Are you designing a game? I am willing to bet on it.

In a cooperative game for adults you could most definitely get away with an imbalance of power levels. Even in a competitive game I have seen mature players take an imbalanced character and play it (a wek one . . . not an OP one) quite happily because they felt it presented them with a challenge worthy of their skills.

This may very well be a question of audience more than anything else . . .

If no strategic choices are being made, they need to be equivalent in mechanical value.

If by "balance" we mean "roughly equal effectiveness in play, whatever that may mean", then absolutely yes, it's important to consider "balance", whether you're writing a challenge-game, a sim-game, or a story-game.
Two Three notions that I think are appropos (and just thought up):
1- if a given choice is stronger than another, is there any reason to take the weaker choice?
2- are these options truly choices, or is it possible that the game will compel a player to settle? [I'm thinking about old-timey "roll your stats in order" scenarios, wherein because of your shitty ability scores, you're forced to be a class that's very weak at first, like a Magic-User]
3- and one more, why not? Is there some manner of archetype lurking in the setting that can only be explored if one is willing to take a big hit in effectiveness? [bit of a stretch here, but what about playing a human in a vampire game, f'rex?]

These three ideas possess some different priorities, of course, but don't rule out #3 in terms of its relevance to a story-game - - if game V is about struggling to retain one's humanness, it is definitely a different, compelling take on the scenario to be an actual human being instead of a literal monster; any humanness you lose is going to be decidedly more abstract/emotional rather than monstrous/literal.

Furthermore, one thing that sometimes happens in story-games is that the type of effectiveness to be had is tangential to power, magical prowess, etc., and is instead found in one's ability to affect the narrative.
In Polaris, for instance, everyone has roughly all the options available in every conflict; the only noticeable limitation is whether or not one's Themes (relationships, equipment, magic powers, etc.) can be adapted to fit the given situation, and thus be used in the conflict for an advantage. Further, every single player-character starts the game looking exactly the same (you're a Star Knight; here's your Star Sword), and then is customized with Themes; but these Themes are highly contextual, and there's no guarantee as to which ones will come up and which will be harder to wrangle into play usefully.