How to obtain balance in RPG design.

[Maxus]

Thanks for the heads up about shadar. I should lurk more and learn more myself too.

The biting criticism from people more likely cleverer than you are, no matter who you are, stops stinging after a while, and then you settle in.

[TOZ]

[Nicklance]

[Maxus]

[shadzar]

shad, the post is on the previous page.

So all this horseshit in between here has totally lost the post I was responding to, that mentioned he part about the game being PvP because BBEG is always an *"NPC wizard that looks just like the party wizard but a few levels higher".

Okay, K did say the word "always" in the description. Now I will say that there is a high possibility that it will be someone with the class levels. It could also be a dragon or some other outer worldly creature. There still needs to be a balance between the monster that you are fighting, the classes (if you are using a class system), and the classes within themselves. Yeah you can't usually put everything you want into a system before stuff starts breaking down or getting overly complicated.

If I were designing a RPG system first I would choose what I want to emulate. Will it be gritty (one-two shot death), realistic, super powered, fantastic, or etc? Then I would see if I wanted to try find sources that match that and see what elements I could take to make it close to that emulation. Will I make it a more generic system or one that is medieval or cyberpunk or future retro or etc?

Next use the Design Flowsheet and see what I come up with. Work on the systems and get it play-tested until it produces the result that I like and send it to see what other think.

Now you see what I am saying, thanks. The problem I have with what K said (thanks for locating it), is that it follows the concept of poor adventure design that Gary followed, not by any true fault of his own; but as a holdover from Chainmail where all the minis would use the same rules and you fought things built int he same manner. He himself diverged form that with (A)D&D When other methods were devised to create opponents for the PCs. So it is sad that he followed the same BBEG method, but it did conform to his human-centric (which I like the idea of but doesn't mean you have to fight a human in the end) world design.

So if it had been done prior to 4th where even human opponents to the PCs were using a different design method, then maybe we wouldn't have this problem that the BBEG should be of the same way and balanced via class levels of the PCs.

I think I played a game before that had two systems. One for player's and one for enemies. There was not much worry with balance between the players in that one, because the group came first in regards of power balance since the opponent followed a different structure of creation for the game.

While the system wasn't badly balanced, or just went unnoticed because things were different, it did not end up much to my taste so don't recall it that well because a human is a human to me, so all should follow the same rules.

I wonder if that same feeling holds to how people view classes now in terms of balance, or just because all things can gain a PC class if needed, so people feel that that is the only place balance should be, and neglect the fact that there are many things the PCs cannot get, and on a whole could cause imbalance in the game where the PCs are not adjusted for compared to monster abilities that PCs just don't get even when taken from those races?

Take dragon(half) PCs from earlier editions before dragonborn. The PCs did not gain all abilities of a dragon, because it would imbalance the system.

So is balance lost in the game, because so much focus on PC classes, that it doesn't get effort put as much into the opponents that do not follow the same structure such as your dragon enemy? Is it lost because of the focus on PC classes, because enemies do not follow the same rules?

Like looking at 4th edition many people see only combat in the books, and due to the nature of the ruleset, you need the most rules for combat, so some things are forgotten, is that true of balance, where people only see the need between players classes because that is what they see the most of? ......Out of sight out of mind, as it were.

[violence in the media]

One of the other considerations for PC/NPC balance and balance between the classes is spells and effects that cause a creature to switch sides. Should fighting your own party's Cleric be inherently more difficult than fighting an enemy Cleric? As far a PvP goes--it happens. Decrying it from the pulpit doesn't do any good, you need to design rules to address it so that the game doesn't come to a screeching halt when it comes up.

Don't blame this on 3rd edition either, there was a lot of PK going on in 2nd edition, and earlier, as well. Hell, I've seen characters come to blows with each other when Elf and Dwarf were classes.

[shadzar]

One of the other considerations for PC/NPC balance and balance between the classes is spells and effects that cause a creature to switch sides. Should fighting your own party's Cleric be inherently more difficult than fighting an enemy Cleric? As far a PvP goes--it happens. Decrying it from the pulpit doesn't do any good, you need to design rules to address it so that the game doesn't come to a screeching halt when it comes up.

Don't blame this on 3rd edition either, there was a lot of PK going on in 2nd edition, and earlier, as well. Hell, I've seen characters come to blows with each other when Elf and Dwarf were classes.

Inter-party conflict (usually left alone by DMs, until it cause a cessation of the game), is always something possible. But how often should it happen, and how should the game balance for it?

Like your cleric example may occur (never seen it, assuming you are working off my earlier idea), I could see more easily rogues and paladins or such coming to blows over things, and the like; or even the evil v good aligned characters of old (2nd edition back).

How frequent should this happen that the game itself should support?

As you say how hard should it be to fight equal level variants of the cleric, should they be party or NPC...or even an NPC in the party (which can happen often). But is it often enough to focus a lot of the game on at the exclusion of other things being balanced.

Do we* really interact mostly with PC-type created opponents, that that is the reason the focus is on them? So maybe the party wants to kill the NPCs in towns as such (kill the gnome merchant and steal his load of wares), rather than fighting other things...like monsters?

*Collectively, as some games do not have anything other than PC created enemies we will exclude them as focus on games with all sides created equally should have balance thusly for the most part.

[Kobajagrande]

Do we* really interact mostly with PC-type created opponents, that that is the reason the focus is on them? So maybe the party wants to kill the NPCs in towns as such (kill the gnome merchant and steal his load of wares), rather than fighting other things...like monsters?

I have not seen a single RPG campagin where evil men/elves/dwarves/whatever where not significant antagonists. For every evil god that awakens, you have an evil cult who tries to awaken him, and an evil cult leader who is his right hand. And the plots of evil kings that were foiled by defeating their soldiers/agents are innumerable. And there are so many towers owned by evil wizards who hatch their infernal plots from them that you could build a metropolis out of them.

So, yes.

[shadzar]

Do we* really interact mostly with PC-type created opponents, that that is the reason the focus is on them? So maybe the party wants to kill the NPCs in towns as such (kill the gnome merchant and steal his load of wares), rather than fighting other things...like monsters?

I have not seen a single RPG campagin where evil men/elves/dwarves/whatever where not significant antagonists. For every evil god that awakens, you have an evil cult who tries to awaken him, and an evil cult leader who is his right hand. And the plots of evil kings that were foiled by defeating their soldiers/agents are innumerable. And there are so many towers owned by evil wizards who hatch their infernal plots from them that you could build a metropolis out of them.

So, yes.

So with all the advancements (in D&D at least), to allow for non-standard PCs using less human-centric races, the main focus of the game still revolves around the human-centric?

I probably should say demi-human as such races are built like humans rather than just being humans....

Strange that that is the focus most use after all these years, isn't it? Was this a learned format or story design, or just because most modules had this; or is it the true preferred way of the art of the story to keep players focused on the game and able to understand it?

(NOW, we are getting into the meat of the topic that the skin has been removed.)

[violence in the media]

So with all the advancements (in D&D at least), to allow for non-standard PCs using less human-centric races, the main focus of the game still revolves around the human-centric?

I probably should say demi-human as such races are built like humans rather than just being humans....

Strange that that is the focus most use after all these years, isn't it? Was this a learned format or story design, or just because most modules had this; or is it the true preferred way of the art of the story to keep players focused on the game and able to understand it?

(NOW, we are getting into the meat of the topic that the skin has been removed.)

I think it's because there's really no other way to do it. Your adversaries really only consist of things that have motivations and things that don't. It doesn't matter what form the opposition takes, but rather what it does and how it acts.

So, you could have a violent berserker that wanders the streets and murders people for no reason, and that won't be a fundamentally different challenge from a rampaging Wyvern in the apple orchards. Nobody particularly cares about the doings of Wyverns because anything a Wyvern is doing isn't going to have much of an effect in the grand scheme of things.

Now, if it's a nefarious hell-Wyvern with designs on overthrowing the king and amassing gold and bitches, that's a different story. But now were getting into a creature with discernible and identifiable motivations, and that inherently makes it kind of "human."

Another thing to consider is the sheer volume of material available. I've never played in a game where everything is, or even could be, present. Maybe the DM never includes Sahaguin in the campaign, or maybe he decided they just don't exist. The point is, everyone goes and actively cuts, or chance omits, a lot of stuff from the game world and the only things that typically stick around are the things with a lot of cultural or personal traction. A lot of times, those things that remain are going to be very "human."

[Kobajagrande]

So with all the advancements (in D&D at least), to allow for non-standard PCs using less human-centric races, the main focus of the game still revolves around the human-centric?

Strange that that is the focus most use after all these years, isn't it?

No, its not strange at all. There is a number of arguments as to why it is as it is:

1. Fantasy literature has always been about humans. A classical fantasy story is all about humans and human traits. A core formula of modern fantasy story, as set by Tolkien´s Hobbit and Lewis´ Narnia is as follows:
- There is a hero. A hero has a character trait which differences him from others.
- A hero is placed against opposition.
- Thanks to his special character trait, hero defeats the opposition.

Fantasy elements serve to amplify certain human attributes that the author wants to work with. A fantasy race serves to embody certain human attributes - thus you have the greedy dwarves, or savage orcs.

2. Monsters are a plot device. Their role is to signify danger (an army of goblins riding wargs and griffins sounds more dangerous than just an army of goblins; also, a serial killer who goes on a killing spree sounds like something the police deals with - a manticore does not), or, to present an obstacle that only a hero can overcome - which shows certain hero's character traits, and speaks much more of him than of the monsters (If you look at LOTR, Aragorn was established as someone experienced, who should be trusted, and as a leader due to his competence in handling the Nazgul).

3. People identify more with humans (well, duh). Demi-humans are also easy to identify with, because, as we said earlier, they just amplify certain human traits. But monsters, monsters are something incomprehensible. Their role is usually that of a beast. The motivations of a manticore are as comprehensible as the motivations of a beast. A manticore is actually a glorified bear. When a character kills a manticore, its simmilar to Old Shatterhand killing a grizzly bear in Winnetou. Does Winnetou end with Old Shatterhand killing a grizzly? No, it does not.

4. Humans are a group that has most diversity in all of fantasy. As we said before, a fantasy race serves to embody certain human attributes. but humans in a fantays setting are a group that again brings them all together. That's why you have good and evil men, and no one finds it strange that there are Sauron-worshipping men from far away fighting alongside the orcs against Gondor.

(NOW, we are getting into the meat of the topic that the skin has been removed.)

In similar news, we're close to the great discovery: If you put a pot full of water above the fire, THE WATER WILL GET WARM!!!!

[shadzar]

Now, if it's a nefarious hell-Wyvern with designs on overthrowing the king and amassing gold and bitches, that's a different story. But now were getting into a creature with discernible and identifiable motivations, and that inherently makes it kind of "human."

Not dismissing the rest, but this the biggest discussion point...it is the semi-human nature that we look for in our opponents, that have their own motivations, rather than mindless rabble just rampaging through?

Is this focused on the story element of the game, which then in turn drives the design balance, so that we may connect better with the story through the game?

While I don't disagree that story is important to the game, many others would, so how is the game balanced for their play that may involve much less story, or is it covered in the greater combat oriented game that would not have "humans" or human-acting opponents as the main obstacles for the party of players?

So now we have that design balance exists with focus to PC types because the story is the root design.

If correct, what types of stories are allowed with current game design balance in mind?

Assume ending 4th prior to fighting gods...what all things are present to fight, and is the focus of BBEG still on human-type BBEGs enough that class balance is as important wherein the opponents do not function the same as created by comparison to PCs.....or monster parties, are not created the same as PC parties outside of the combined power levels of each side via tight-knit PC levels in a party, and the encounter budget system of 4th.

I will have to borrow a 4th MM to see what "monsters" are in there that emulate PCs at higher levels to be a BBEG to see if the story where BBEG is similar to PCs types exist and is creatable.

Theory would state they should for the balance that 4th strives to achieve throughout all levels of play, and it is supposed to be the best well balanced version of D&D....

[violence in the media]

While I don't disagree that story is important to the game, many others would, so how is the game balanced for their play that may involve much less story, or is it covered in the greater combat oriented game that would not have "humans" or human-acting opponents as the main obstacles for the party of players?

At this point the game is balanced by having dungeons full of bears. Maybe a pit trap. If all the PCs can respond adequately to bears and pit traps, then things are cool.