How to obtain balance in RPG design.

[Judging__Eagle]

Balance in game design is not about opposing powers, but instead about cooperative powers.

It's like putting in two rocket engines in a vehicle - if they're of different size, the rocket will veer off course. So it's important that the output of each is balanced to the other, even if their fuels are different.

-Crissa

I rather like that analogy.

The case, fuel, design, shape, etc. of the rockets don't matter. What matters is their possible power output.

[shadzar]

Balance in game design is not about opposing powers, but instead about cooperative powers.

It's like putting in two rocket engines in a vehicle - if they're of different size, the rocket will veer off course. So it's important that the output of each is balanced to the other, even if their fuels are different.

-Crissa

I can see than in a sense of an all fighter party should work, but not in a sense where you must have class X because they are needed in combat. The "power synergy" crap needs to be thrown out because you cannot predict what class will be played unless you forbid character creation and just give characters meant to be played with an adventure.

Also the fighter and cleric powers working together bit cannot be balanced, because every fighter character will not like the cleric in the party, if there is one.

It isn't the powers that cooperate, but the players.

Are you suggesting only by having powers that work off each other that the players will cooperate?

Also your rocket example is completely useless. Take a new player and one that has been playing for years. Your engines will not fire in sequence, because they will not be working at the same level even if both built to the same specs. The new one hasn't gone through enough testing of its design as the older one that should give the same output.

And this is one of the things i mean when i say balancing the classes will do squat for most cases. This is because the designers cannot see how you will play the game, nor can they force their way upon you.

It isn't about the game being broken because some people play it differently, or it does not have Sigma 6 balance as someone else mentioned, but simply that you cannot design a game around one style of play and expect everyone to play that way.

It hasn't happened in 30 years of RPGs. There are just too many things to do in them to control all the variables to make the "balance" in the books work even if it is perfect.

Also with cooperative powers, the term is really vague, so i am just using it one way which you may not mean. But in this case forcing one player to use a power after another to work with it also will not work to get those synergies because the next player may just want to do something else than what the previous power user decided for him to do, or may not be able to do it when the time comes. Taking 4th as the example, of a group of monsters vs a group of players each person could have their own opponent to worry about and not really be able to help another, unlike past where solo monsters were more probable.

Also by placing focus on balancing to the one side then you don't have must chance of giving a fair game to the players because you could have the player party always underpowered for whatever they are coming up against. Thus why the DM is supposed to judge what is going up against the players at all times. No adventure has ever has perfect encounter because they are not designed for the actual people playing them, just to satisfy the math.

Also to prove this that balance in the classes don't work is that if it did, then there would already be the system designed for it, because every house rule would have came out the same way, but people like to play differently. So you are never going to agree on it. So it is best to try what 4th tried and make the opposing sides balance in power (not powers) so that whatever choice is made at least they have a fair chance. Even then it wont be perfect as the player group HAS TO work together as the DM group always will. Since the DM after all will have the monster party always do what he wants and work together, yet the players may not want to do the same thing in a combat...and this goes for other parts of the game as well.

To get class balance, you would need to remove all ability scores, and dice from character creation for starters. Also you would have to have the same number of HP or whatever the respective game term is for other games....

@Murtak: Right, balance does not always equal fun. That is why there is a side that likes to play fighters in high levels, and wizards of said levels that don't try to make them regret doing so.

Also, who decides what is a bad choice to make? That is another problem many people have. If the choice does not give optimal mechanical results, then it is a bad choice in some peoples eyes.

Some of the most fun have in past games included disadvantages and such in second from PO. Something as simple as a color-blind character which most times wouldn't matter, can at some times cause real interesting and fun situations. Of course some disability as this should be cured right away in the game right, as it could cause no good to come from it, and is definitely mechanically a bad choice right?

The idea of balance in some people's minds comes form their idea of it being badwrongfun to play a suboptimal character because the person is not looking for precise number crunching fights that yield the best results always, but may be looking for something more form the game rather than being an armchair general for a single man army. So how do you balance the game for those people that aren't looking to optimize every aspect of a character, or become one trick ponies that are the best at their one trick?

All this fits into your "What challenges are the characters supposed to encounter?", and that is up to the players to decide, unless you design a game with much fewer options. Like a boardgame, even HeroQuest for example. A game in which there are limit things to do, or some action sequence per turn that you can do, rather than being able to do anything.

That is really the key in understanding an RPG. Also one in why balance will never be had. You are a character in the game world, that can try to do anything, and there must be some way to allow it. Even jumping off a building and trying to fly for no other reason that you think your character can. The rules exist for that and they are balanced. Gravity exists or it doesn't. In D&D it unspokenly does, and such an act will succumb to falling damage rules.

Which goes back to why can a magic missile NOT be used to push a lever or button or anything else for that matter?

Let's look at Magic Missie form Basic:

Magic Missile
Range: 150’
Duration: 1 round
Effect: Creates 1 or more arrows

A Magic Missile is a glowing arrow, created and shot by magic, which inflicts 2-7 (ld6+ 1) points of damage to any creature it strikes. After the spell is cast, the arrow appears next to the magic-user and hovers there until the magic-user causes it to shoot. When shot, it will automatically hit any visible target. It will move with the magic-user until shot or until the duration ends. The Magic Missile actually has no solid form, and cannot be touched. A Magic Missile never misses its target and the target is not allowed a Saving Throw.

For every 5 levels of experience of the caster, two more missiles are created by the same spell. Thus a 6th Level Magic-user may create three missiles. The missiles may be shot at different targets.

Now many people dispute common sense and physics in the game world. You can carry that statue around and it fits nicely through doors half its size...

Well that being the case and since other magic without a solid form (ghosts) can move things as well as do damage. So why can a magic missile not also move things even without solid form? So it cannot be touched so you cannot knock it off course with a parry.

For balance wouldn't it make more sense then to not limit the missile to creatures for dealing damage? If you intend it not to be able to move things as other magical "forces" can that have no solid form?

So who really decides what route gets to the outcome that is expected? Can you always expect the same outcome? and really, who decides how something is used in a game as "open source" as an RPG? It would be a lot of work unless you just design around the common thoughts of the designers. Because some say even 4h doesn't get enough playtesting form a large enough sample size of players to see how things will want to be used even in the powers limited capacities such as Magic Missile was made.

So that playtesting will always come form the players once the game is had to houserule to taste, right? Is it something game designers can really afford to do?

[Murtak]

Also, who decides what is a bad choice to make? That is another problem many people have. If the choice does not give optimal mechanical results, then it is a bad choice in some peoples eyes.

Some of the most fun have in past games included disadvantages and such in second from PO.

Goddamnit, not this type of crap again. This is just another variety of "rollplay vs roleplay". Sure, I can have fun with pretty much anything when I sit down with a group of good friends. But in the case of crappy games I am having fun despite the game, not because of it. And I would have more fun with a better game.

With a perfectly balanced game you can just pick your roleplay hooks and character abilities according to flavor text and have a playable character. How can you not be in favor of that? Unless you think of character generation as a minigame, balancing never makes the game worse and nearly always makes the game better.

So yes, being able to choose a mechanically superior ability makes the game worse. We manage to have fun playing DnD despite polymorph madness, archer clerics and fighters playing alongside druids. But we would have a lot more fun if the casters wouldn't have to intentionally pick crappy spells and the DM needn't hand out artifacts to the monk just to play in the same campaign.

[shadzar]

Also, who decides what is a bad choice to make? That is another problem many people have. If the choice does not give optimal mechanical results, then it is a bad choice in some peoples eyes.

Some of the most fun have in past games included disadvantages and such in second from PO.

Goddamnit, not this type of crap again. This is just another variety of "rollplay vs roleplay". Sure, I can have fun with pretty much anything when I sit down with a group of good friends. But in the case of crappy games I am having fun despite the game, not because of it. And I would have more fun with a better game.

Subjectivity cannot be quantified.

You don't decide what is fun for others. But that was not the point of that part of my post.

The point was simply you cannot know what others consider to be fun in game design. You can only decide what you design, and designing for a limited view, those who only want mechanical optimization, means the game will not be "balanced" for those that do not strictly optimize.

If a game without mechanical optimization is not fun, then why do so many exist in the world today? They do despite you and not liking them, because others do.

Lets take a game that tries to be optimizable, 40k. You can build the best FOC to go up against any single army. The problem is when you play, you don't know what you are going up against to begin with, so may have built for wiping the floor with IG, but be confronted with Nids that will wipe the floor with you.

Is ability to optimize then balance? Well if 40k was balanced the main rules wouldn't be changing every other year at the current rate.

So not optimizing is not badwrongfun, because you think it all characters should be optimized. You, like the designers have no right to say how another plays and what they find fun in. Which is what causes problems to creating balance, unless you force your views upon another as to the way they should play. Sure the onetrueway will cause balance, if you can find enough people that agree with you to play that game with you....

[RobbyPants]

If the game were balanced in the first place, you wouldn't need to optimize. Be definition, you couldn't optimize.

Murtak is right. You shouldn't have to try to ignore the crappy parts of a game to have fun with your friends.

[Parthenon]

Also the fighter and cleric powers working together bit cannot be balanced, because every fighter character will not like the cleric in the party, if there is one.

What?

No, really, what? Oh, wait, you left out a word. That really confused me there. You meant to say that "not every fighter will like the cleric".

It isn't the powers that cooperate, but the players.

Are you suggesting only by having powers that work off each other that the players will cooperate?

I sort of see what you mean. A power like hypnotise that stuns enemies until they are attacked in order to focus on the others is useless if an inexperienced player attacks them next and releases them.

And if the players work together and kill one enemy per round rather than each attack a different enemy then they will perform better.

Or if for some reason fire and cold damage cancel each other out then the wizard throwing a Fireball and the witch brewing up an Icestorm attacking each other actually hinders cooperation.

But if the players aren't willing to work together then you can't have cooperation anyway, and whether the game is balanced is the least of your worries. Even if its just a comment that they should attack another enemy.

And having powers that work well together is another incentive to cooperate. Like giving candy to children to get them into your van: you can force them in there anyway, but if you give them incentives in the form of candy they will be more willing and less likely to complain and scream molestation.

Or was that bad taste?

Also your rocket example is completely useless. Take a new player and one that has been playing for years. Your engines will not fire in sequence, because they will not be working at the same level even if both built to the same specs. The new one hasn't gone through enough testing of its design as the older one that should give the same output.

To some extent this can be reduced by having simple classes like the barbarian and a paragraph or so of suggested tactics. If the new player is given useful hints as to how to deal damage and is willing to listen to suggestions from the experienced player then the cooperation out of character will help the cooperation in character.

And again, playstyles will differ but surely you'd expect a cooperative RPG like D&D to be more difficult if they don't cooperate.

Also, who decides what is a bad choice to make? That is another problem many people have. If the choice does not give optimal mechanical results, then it is a bad choice in some peoples eyes.

Some of the most fun have in past games included disadvantages and such in second from PO. Something as simple as a color-blind character which most times wouldn't matter, can at some times cause real interesting and fun situations. Of course some disability as this should be cured right away in the game right, as it could cause no good to come from it, and is definitely mechanically a bad choice right?

Umm... so you are suggesting that if a character is for example blind, or paraplegic, as in interesting mechanical drawback, then the enemies they face should be easier so that the party has a 50% chance of winning anyway?

Or are you equating choosing to be colour blind to choosing to be a wizard?

I thought that the whole point of drawbacks was to make it harder- so that you can roleplay trying to deal with the harder difficulty and how the character deals with being paraplegic and being tied to the fighter's back or whatever.

I think that if there are options given to you as standard such as the classes, then they should all be relatively equal and none of them should be a drawback in comparison to the others. And then if you want the DM and the player can add extra options like colour-blindness on top of your choices, but any drawbacks you choose aren't considered in terms of balance.

The idea of balance in some people's minds comes form their idea of it being badwrongfun to play a suboptimal character because the person is not looking for precise number crunching fights that yield the best results always, but may be looking for something more form the game rather than being an armchair general for a single man army.

No. The idea of balance in these people's minds comes from the idea of it being badwrongfun to expect their Fighter to be able to be a contributing member of the group and then have the Fighter might as well be practicing calligraphy in the background. Unless you are roleplaying a useless sidekick you will want your PC to be on a par with the rest of your party.

Someone looking for more from the game than just the combat should be able to have a character that is balanced and can contribute easily so they don't have to worry about it. So they can help out in combat without thinking too much and get it over quickly.

I mean, at the basic level, the group is supposed to be a party of equals, right? If you want to have one or two PCs being sidekicks then they should be lower level. And if they are equals then they should contribute roughly equally to the adventure mechanically.

Because some say even 4h doesn't get enough playtesting form a large enough sample size of players to see how things will want to be used even in the powers limited capacities such as Magic Missile was made.

So that playtesting will always come form the players once the game is had to houserule to taste, right? Is it something game designers can really afford to do?

No. The problems with 4the edition playtesting have been talked about here before. The playtesting itself was badly done, not the idea of playtesting itself.

[Murtak]

The point was simply you cannot know what others consider to be fun in game design. You can only decide what you design, and designing for a limited view, those who only want mechanical optimization, means the game will not be "balanced" for those that do not strictly optimize.

God-fucking-damn-it, that is my exact point. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that balancing and optimizing are in any way shape or form similar. But they are not. I am in fact proposing that given a balanced game optimizing does nothing. Even when the game is only somewhat balanced the gaps between optimized and unoptimized characters shrinks rapidly.

[K]

So that playtesting will always come form the players once the game is had to houserule to taste, right? Is it something game designers can really afford to do?

Bad rules get houseruled as a result of playtesting. Good ones don't.

I mean, anyone with any experience knows that Magic Missile is a crap spell that only exists in DnD as a result of legacy issues. Various versions of DnD have been filled with crap like the many psuedo-scientific misunderstandings of darkvision, and magic missile's weird damage and targetting mechanics are no exception.

Then take something like 3e Fireball. We know how that works. We know exactly how big of a Fireball it takes to blow off a door, but in older versions of DnD with less rules we didn't. In fact, Fireballs used to fill all available space until some designer realized that this was crazy-logic and changed it to its current and much cleaner version (and Lightning Bolts bounced off walls, which often led to hilarious results for anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of geometry).

Good designers learn the lessons of RPG history, and design rules that don't have to be houseruled. Shadowrun, for example, has a working version of the Magic Missile spell and I don't doubt it is because they learned the lesson from DnD. In fact, I've never even heard of someone even thinking of changing it.

--------------

Your real problem is: people can get asymmetric power in your game, either as a result of player skill or unexpected uses of the rules, so why even pretend you can balance things?

The answer is simply that you CAN balance things to a degree where the amount of asymmetric power possible is negligible. Shadowrun is a good example of a game where player skill doesn't really affect the outcomes of missions because the amount of power you can get from serious optimizing or creativity is well below any game-breaking potential.

Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. Creating a game is a process where unworkable rules get weeded out when newer editions come out, and a few fuzzy areas in the rules of any particular game don't mean that games are impossible to balance to a signifigent degree.

[shadzar]

Also the fighter and cleric powers working together bit cannot be balanced, because every fighter character will not like the cleric in the party, if there is one.

What?

No, really, what? Oh, wait, you left out a word. That really confused me there. You meant to say that "not every fighter will like the cleric".

Yeah, i had the not in the wrong place...not every fighter will like the cleric in their party.

If the game were balanced in the first place, you wouldn't need to optimize. Be definition, you couldn't optimize.

Murtak is right. You shouldn't have to try to ignore the crappy parts of a game to have fun with your friends.

Again I ask what are you balancing? The function of the mechanics, the number of them, for players to be equal in strength to each other, for the player party to be equal in strength to the opposition it faces....what?

What is the most important thing to balance, and what things aren't something the designers can balance due to not knowing how everyone else will or will want to play the game?

It isn't the powers that cooperate, but the players.

Are you suggesting only by having powers that work off each other that the players will cooperate?

I sort of see what you mean. A power like hypnotise that stuns enemies until they are attacked in order to focus on the others is useless if an inexperienced player attacks them next and releases them.

And if the players work together and kill one enemy per round rather than each attack a different enemy then they will perform better.

Or if for some reason fire and cold damage cancel each other out then the wizard throwing a Fireball and the witch brewing up an Icestorm attacking each other actually hinders cooperation.

But if the players aren't willing to work together then you can't have cooperation anyway, and whether the game is balanced is the least of your worries. Even if its just a comment that they should attack another enemy.

And having powers that work well together is another incentive to cooperate. Like giving candy to children to get them into your van: you can force them in there anyway, but if you give them incentives in the form of candy they will be more willing and less likely to complain and scream molestation.

Or was that bad taste?

Right, no matter what the rules do to work together such as your stunning effect, if the players aren't working together, then it doesn't matter how well you balance it for those powers.

Even giving them so many powers that work together, you aren't guaranteed that they will be used in that manner.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

Also your rocket example is completely useless. Take a new player and one that has been playing for years. Your engines will not fire in sequence, because they will not be working at the same level even if both built to the same specs. The new one hasn't gone through enough testing of its design as the older one that should give the same output.

To some extent this can be reduced by having simple classes like the barbarian and a paragraph or so of suggested tactics. If the new player is given useful hints as to how to deal damage and is willing to listen to suggestions from the experienced player then the cooperation out of character will help the cooperation in character.

And again, playstyles will differ but surely you'd expect a cooperative RPG like D&D to be more difficult if they don't cooperate.

Right again, which is why i say a main focus on balance, is that of balanced play. if you cannot make it balanced for all playstyles, then you need to offer plenty of examples of the suspected playstyle that you are trying to have the game replicate. Why should the barbarian use Bull Rush instead of Great Cleave...i know i am mixing 3rd and 4th, but go with....because the effect of the last power pushed the enemy away enough to make use of the Bull Rush to give the player party an advantage.

Of course you have no idea what tactics will be used in play, and if you don't give some idea of how the game was designed to use them, then all sorts of things will happen, and people should not be forced to look online to find out things the game books should say.

Also, who decides what is a bad choice to make? That is another problem many people have. If the choice does not give optimal mechanical results, then it is a bad choice in some peoples eyes.

Some of the most fun have in past games included disadvantages and such in second from PO. Something as simple as a color-blind character which most times wouldn't matter, can at some times cause real interesting and fun situations. Of course some disability as this should be cured right away in the game right, as it could cause no good to come from it, and is definitely mechanically a bad choice right?

Umm... so you are suggesting that if a character is for example blind, or paraplegic, as in interesting mechanical drawback, then the enemies they face should be easier so that the party has a 50% chance of winning anyway?

Or are you equating choosing to be colour blind to choosing to be a wizard?

I thought that the whole point of drawbacks was to make it harder- so that you can roleplay trying to deal with the harder difficulty and how the character deals with being paraplegic and being tied to the fighter's back or whatever.

I think that if there are options given to you as standard such as the classes, then they should all be relatively equal and none of them should be a drawback in comparison to the others. And then if you want the DM and the player can add extra options like colour-blindness on top of your choices, but any drawbacks you choose aren't considered in terms of balance.

Well IIRC form Player's Options of 2nd editoin AD&D, there were skill points to spend or something like it, and you got X number to choose some abilites, and weren't limited to dwarves having to detect slope but could choose thiings like NWPs more closer to what became feats in 3rd.

Well in order to get more points, you could take some kind of disadvantage like Fear (something). Now that fear might not show itself most of the game, and you got a few points back to spend from taking the disadvantage in order to purchase another ability that you might use throughout the game. They had some balance to them in that the number of point given was dependent on how bad the drawback was, and you weren't allowed to just take tons of them, but say 2 so you could spend more on an ability to make your character unique to what you wanted to play under that point buy system. So being color-blind wouldn't really be a problem unless this character had to go trigger the red lever next to the green one. But whatever skill he got in return was always helpful, and that little bit of color-blind could result in, other than more character to the character, but a more realistic story when all your heroes are perfect beings.

The idea of balance in some people's minds comes form their idea of it being badwrongfun to play a suboptimal character because the person is not looking for precise number crunching fights that yield the best results always, but may be looking for something more form the game rather than being an armchair general for a single man army.

No. The idea of balance in these people's minds comes from the idea of it being badwrongfun to expect their Fighter to be able to be a contributing member of the group and then have the Fighter might as well be practicing calligraphy in the background. Unless you are roleplaying a useless sidekick you will want your PC to be on a par with the rest of your party.

Someone looking for more from the game than just the combat should be able to have a character that is balanced and can contribute easily so they don't have to worry about it. So they can help out in combat without thinking too much and get it over quickly.

I mean, at the basic level, the group is supposed to be a party of equals, right? If you want to have one or two PCs being sidekicks then they should be lower level. And if they are equals then they should contribute roughly equally to the adventure mechanically.

I see that as more of a group problem, than a rules one. Ok the wizard can cast hell of a lot of damaging spells and blow the whole world up. But just because you can do a thing should you?

Let's take 4th edition with this example. You can burn up your dailies at the start of the day, but is it wise to do so and only have encounters left and at-wills? What if you need one of those dailies? Did you really need to use them that soon? Are you just going to hide and rest to recover them once for the day, and have to wait 24 hours before you can get them back again?

It is like the wizard just picking spells for things the rogue can do. Sure he can, but should he?

This is a part of the group dynamic, and a part of the world in which was designed. High Fantasy.

This is opposed to 4th edition where every class is just a wizard with a new name slapped on it, as they all have Vancian casting of their powers.

Just as a wizard could do great damage, there was a system of checks and balances in place to prevent it. What things could cause a wizard to not be able to perform?

I see it as an early problem of optimization when the wizard tries to fulfill the roles of the whole party. Rather than being useful to the rest of the party a wizard player would try to take it over on some power trip. While probable in character, what happens to that wizard when casting a spell and a simple housecat jumps on him and the rest of the party is playing checkers in the corner?

It is why and where the party must work together to make sure that the players are all able to contribute, other than just the characters. Again I recall the video podcast by WotC about 4th edition, where the rogue was trapped the entire combat, just rolling and failing saves, while the others got something to do.

Now if 4th is so well balanced, why was one player forced to sit out the combat?

I think equals in the party relates only to the players, not the characters. That would be up to the group to decide on party structure and order for the characters, BUT they should make sure no PLAYER is left out during the game. It is not the characters that play the game, but the players. Characters can be replaced easier than a player could. So it is up to the group to make sure the players are equal and have equal opportunities to play as each other.

playtesting

What i said was that you cannot playtest for all instances, not that you shouldn't playtest, but that it will never work out for the majority, unless you run off every player that doesn't want to play with and like you.

So real playtesting will be done in the individual player groups, that always leads to houserules.

[shadzar]

So that playtesting will always come form the players once the game is had to houserule to taste, right? Is it something game designers can really afford to do?

Bad rules get houseruled as a result of playtesting. Good ones don't.

Will you admit that what you see as a bad rule, may not be so for someone else?

Fixing magic missile i would not say is a balance issue, but a vagueness and cluttered idea one. I want to go read Shadowrun's now to see what it was....

Again, I ask what should be balanced for? Before you know that, then how do you know if the end result of the design will even be balanced?

Balanced for what?

[Murtak]

Balanced for what the game's designer(s) consider to be appropriate of course. No doubt you will say "but what if I want to play DnD-meets-StarTrek? You can't dictate how I play the game". And the answer is "No I can't. But I can balance my own game and then tell my players we will play a Conan-like-campaign. Feel free to play StarTrek.".

Of course you can't balance for every hypothetical situation. If you want to play Conan a Laser turret with a high chess skill will be damn useless - but that is fine. But you can design a game to replay the Conan movies and balance (and design) for tactical and cinematic combat, little to no combat magic, breaking and entering and fantastic beasts. Anyone who wants to use your game to replay Game of Thrones can of course do so, but you can and should not attempt to balance for it.

[Dakira]

Right again, which is why i say a main focus on balance, is that of balanced play. if you cannot make it balanced for all playstyles, then you need to offer plenty of examples of the suspected playstyle that you are trying to have the game replicate.

Are you serious? I didn't take the time to find the best examples but...

I am not saying you cannot have balance, but again what are you trying to balance? Does each class in a class based system that uses different rules for the opposition, need to be balanced against each other, or should the player party be balanced against the obstacles they will face? Most times I heard about balance it is akin to infighting in the party over who has the better shtick. This cannot be the function of even 4th edition D&D right? One player trying to better the others?

Also to prove this that balance in the classes don't work is that if it did, then there would already be the system designed for it, because every house rule would have came out the same way, but people like to play differently. So you are never going to agree on it.

And this is one of the things i mean when i say balancing the classes will do squat for most cases. This is because the designers cannot see how you will play the game, nor can they force their way upon you.

Are you serious!? What do you "define" as "play"? And never mind the rest of your argument which shifts slightly with every post.

Please at least do this in the future: click the preview button and proof read your posts.

Again, I ask what should be balanced for? Before you know that, then how do you know if the end result of the design will even be balanced?

Balanced for what?

I hope you know that you're asking a question which will have no agreeable answer. Rather there will be a number of right answers depending on what/how you want to play.

[shadzar]

Balanced for what the game's designer(s) consider to be appropriate of course. No doubt you will say "but what if I want to play DnD-meets-StarTrek? You can't dictate how I play the game". And the answer is "No I can't. But I can balance my own game and then tell my players we will play a Conan-like-campaign. Feel free to play StarTrek.".

Of course you can't balance for every hypothetical situation. If you want to play Conan a Laser turret with a high chess skill will be damn useless - but that is fine. But you can design a game to replay the Conan movies and balance (and design) for tactical and cinematic combat, little to no combat magic, breaking and entering and fantastic beasts. Anyone who wants to use your game to replay Game of Thrones can of course do so, but you can and should not attempt to balance for it.

Right idea, but maybe in the wrong vein of what I was thinking.

While the concept of playing futuristic in a medieval settings would be a good example of what to balance for, i was thinking more along the lines of the game.

Say it wouldn't be too hard to balance for all types of magic fantasy, because low or high would just change the level magic introduced at the table.

Also there is balance between combat and RP, or is there and should there be? How can you judge how much combat or RP there should be? That will be up o the players or at best their interpretation of the presented rules.

4th edition as an example: RP is not missing, but it has a heavy focus on combat. When someone looks at it for the first time will they think about RP much? Can any power be used for RP, and how many? Are they balanced between RP and combat?

Does the classes of the players need to be balanced when the enemies they will face work under a different set of rules, or should the end result of the groups be balanced against each other vis-a-vis CR/EL/etc and "encounter budget"?

How do you balance say a brute vs a paladin in 4th? a fighter? Are they even balanced in any way?

If you are going for balance between player classes, then doesn't that mean either of two things:
a- you can play a game with a player party filled with a single class and it will cause no problems
b- no single class is really needed to play

Which if both of those are true, then you are presented with a question:
Why have more than one class, if they are all equal?

So we have one thing to balance, the tech in either Conan or Star Trek worlds, so balancing the genre is good...then what?

[shadzar]

Again, I ask what should be balanced for? Before you know that, then how do you know if the end result of the design will even be balanced?

Balanced for what?

I hope you know that you're asking a question which will have no agreeable answer. Rather there will be a number of right answers depending on what/how you want to play.

Then you see my point entirely. Most times I only hear balance spoken of from a competitive point of view of the players. Do you really need to balance for that? Is that really a part of the game? If implied in the rules, then how so, and was that the intent when other read something else?

[K]

So that playtesting will always come form the players once the game is had to houserule to taste, right? Is it something game designers can really afford to do?

Bad rules get houseruled as a result of playtesting. Good ones don't.

Will you admit that what you see as a bad rule, may not be so for someone else?

Fixing magic missile i would not say is a balance issue, but a vagueness and cluttered idea one. I want to go read Shadowrun's now to see what it was....

Again, I ask what should be balanced for? Before you know that, then how do you know if the end result of the design will even be balanced?

Balanced for what?

No. Bad rules are bad rules, and believing that your opinion changes that fact is insanity and/or magic thinking.

Balance and good rules are not some super-complicated ideal that can't be obtained. Here's a simple flowchart:

1. Is the ability as written as useful as abilities given to other characters with equal advancement?

2. Is the ability written clearly enough that people don't have to houserule it?

3. If no on Point 1 or Point 2, rewrite it to correct the problem.

The following bone balance in all cases:

A. Trying to offset an ability with a drawback. Drawbacks don't offset power.... ever. More power is just more power because players will always choose situations that minimize their weaknesses.

B. Assuming that houseruling or DM fiat can fix problems with abilities means you've given up on a balanced game. Play Magic Tea Party, because this "RPG" concept is too hard for you.

C. Open-ended abilities are easy to use in Magic Tea Party, but wickedly hard to do in an RPG. I seriously could play 3e DnD with a 10th level Commoner with UMD and some scrolls and wands of my favorite open-ended spells and still make the fighter look like a poon, and that's not because I'm some RPG Superman but because I have the minimal amount of creativity to use those open-ended spells to their full potential.

So don't do open-ended stuff.

------

At the end of the day, balance is only important between players. You can just run games where Team Monster kills two characters per battle and still have a balanced game, but when two characters stand next to each other and you say "yeh, we could seriously just not have your character and be fine" then you have gone seriously wrong.

The essence of an RPG is the fact that the written rules run all aspects of the game, and the game master gets to go crazy with plots and characters. Trusting the average RPG-lover to write rules is a recipe for fail.

[shadzar]

No. Bad rules are bad rules, and believing that your opinion changes that fact is insanity and/or magic thinking.

Balance and good rules are not some super-complicated ideal that can't be obtained. Here's a simple flowchart:

1. Is the ability as written as useful as abilities given to other characters with equal advancement?

2. Is the ability written clearly enough that people don't have to houserule it?

3. If no on Point 1 or Point 2, rewrite it to correct the problem.

The following bone balance in all cases:

A. Trying to offset an ability with a drawback. Drawbacks don't offset power.... ever. More power is just more power because players will always choose situations that minimize their weaknesses.

B. Assuming that houseruling or DM fiat can fix problems with abilities means you've given up on a balanced game. Play Magic Tea Party, because this "RPG" concept is too hard for you.

C. Open-ended abilities are easy to use in Magic Tea Party, but wickedly hard to do in an RPG. I seriously could play 3e DnD with a 10th level Commoner with UMD and some scrolls and wands of my favorite open-ended spells and still make the fighter look like a poon, and that's not because I'm some RPG Superman but because I have the minimal amount of creativity to use those open-ended spells to their full potential.

So don't do open-ended stuff.

I want to think a bit on these and find something that fits, but some would consider a bad rule as-is, such that I could prove that it is not, but just the way you look at it and approach the rule.

Of course I will stay within official D&D (TSR/WotC) as the parameters. Such as those should have been properly balanced.

[violence in the media]

Why are you so obsessed with the validity of your opinion? There are people out there that are of the opinion that the earth is 6000 years old and that the world governments are run by lizard people. Even though those are earnestly held opinions, it doesn't make them any more right or valuable.

Seriously, pointing at a bad rule and saying that, against all evidence to the contrary, you think it's a good rule just makes you look like a moron; it does nothing to improve the rule you cited.

[Username17]

Irving Kristol, ... argued that there was no reason to choose between the rational atheism of Freud and the religion of Moses, since the two can be reconciled by adopting, “a double standard of truth. Let men believe in the lies of religion since they cannot do without them, and let the handful of sages, who know the truth and can live with it, keep it among themselves. Men are then divided into the wise and the foolish, the philosophers and the common men, and atheism becomes a guarded esoteric doctrine – for if the illusions of religion were to be discredited, there is no telling with what madness men would be seized, with what uncontrollable anguish.”

-Username17

[shadzar]

Why are you so obsessed with the validity of your opinion? There are people out there that are of the opinion that the earth is 6000 years old and that the world governments are run by lizard people. Even though those are earnestly held opinions, it doesn't make them any more right or valuable.

Seriously, pointing at a bad rule and saying that, against all evidence to the contrary, you think it's a good rule just makes you look like a moron; it does nothing to improve the rule you cited.

More to the point to prove that the rule is not bad, but how people perceive it through themselves. As you state a matter of opinion, and as I often see regarding opinions about things in D&D by a certain class of people that play, it proves another point.

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has them and some stink.

So the opinions of the "designers" are no better that that of those who play the game.

In terms of balance it proves that they still haven't found the common ground between all types of players for what to balance the game for. So rather than after 30 years, they are taking the easy way out and just trying to show some effort in balance, rather than finding the key thing that needs to be balanced.

Balancing a game towards PvP that is not a PvP game is wasted effort that could be spent elsewhere.

Take 3rds ECL/CR etc. That was supposed to balance things, but how many people complain about it? How many people complain that 4th is too swingy and as written most adventures are TPKs. This doesn't make for a balanced game either. Also look at how many here view 1st and 2nd AD&D as a confusing mess of non-related systems in order to get to an end result. They see a lack of balance in that the rules aren't similar enough, and that cause a problem for many with the overly dependent rules of the unified 4th edition system. While others view the flexibility in the multiple systems to be the key that grants it balanced, because changing one system does not directly affect the rest of the game and can balance things on a smaller scale than the macro one of 4th edition.

So after the 30 years, why have the designers yet to figure out what to balance the game for, that suits all the players? One reason the players want different things, and it is elitist to tell someone to stop being a douche and competing with the other players to gain the most time in the spotlight, because that would crush their creativity if you point out their disruptive behavior. But the player competition is the problem where the balance issue is raised, so that is where it must be looked at, and from an angl that will solve the problem, not hide it such as 4th edition did with giving all classes Vancian casting of powers.

Many people want to blame the rules, rather than the asshole players, just so they can keep those players. I would rather do without those players UNLESS they can learn the focus of the game.....

The Goal

Another major difference between role-playing games and other games is the ultimate goal. Everyone assumes that a game must have a beginning and an end and that the end comes when someone wins. That doesn't apply to role-playing because no one "wins" in a role-playing game. The point of playing is not to win but to have fun and to socialize.
An adventure usually has a goal of some sort: protect the villagers from the monsters; rescue the lost princess; explore the ancient ruins. Typically, this goal can be attained in a reasonable playing time: four to eight hours is standard. This might require the players to get together for one, two, or even three playing sessions to reach their goal and complete the adventure.

But the game doesn't end when an adventure is finished. The same characters can go on to new adventures. Such a series of adventures is called a campaign.
Remember, the point of an adventure is not to win but to have fun while working toward a common goal. But the length of any particular adventure need not impose an artificial limit on the length of the game. The AD&D game embraces more than enough adventure to keep a group of characters occupied for years.



Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

Cooperate with the other players and respect their right to participate. Encourage new and novice players by
making suggestions and allowing them to make decisions on courses of action rather than dictating their responses.

You, along with your friends, will create a great fantasy story,

I notice how 3rd went less towards saying that you work together, but that you compete. May be why it became so popular in the height of video gaming LAN parties to compete against each other. It jsut says:

You and your friends face the dangers and explore the mysteries your Dungeon Master sets before you.

Says nothing about working together. It goes on further to make it look as though the PCs are just working together by chance, rather than actually working together.

Each character’s imaginary life is different.

Hell the book just jumps into Let's make a character before telling you what the game is about.

Finally 4th corrects something in 3rd by saying it outright!

What makes the D&D game unique is the D&D is a cooperative game in which you and your friends work together to complete each adventure and have fun.

But sadly that is as far as it goes. Most editions have just that one line in the intro, that can be easily forgotten or glossed over with everything else. It seems like an afterthought to add the line into any edition, but it is the foundation of the game, which should have more emphasis. If such was placed in the design, then thee would need be less worrying about the wizard killing everything because he wouldn't be doing that unless the group required it. The wizard would be cooperating with the other players rather than showing off in earlier editions, and you wouldn't have the bastardized healing in 4th to try to force people to work together with everyone using everyone else's resources such as healing surges whether the wanted it or not.

Forced cooperation via mechanics, does not balance make. Making it known that the game only works through cooperation will make any mechanic in the game more easily balance when it is understood that the purpose is to work with the other players for the "common goal" of the game.

So, the point is that the focus of the books, are a major part of the effort to balance the game, and just going into rules, and presenting them to look like "cool things" you can do, can easily shift that focus from a group effort to work together to a competitive one, to see who can outdo someone else in the game. Even with all level advancement rates the same, and pretty much giving everyone similar abilities as the group levels at gains things all at the same time. Looks of 4th editions balance, can be deceiving, as do looks of other editions not being balanced.

It all comes down to what you are balancing for, and why.

[souran]

Come on guys, keep posting, at this rate he will never run out of "wall of text" spells! Need more Tots (text over time)!

[K]

I don't know where you get that DnD is not PVP. The default enemy of any adventure has always been "the evil wizard" who is explicitly using the same chassis as the party wizard, but a few levels higher.

I mean, lots of adventures are against dark knights and clerics of evil gods, so it doesn't really do your system any justice if you don't balance for PvP because sometimes the other Player in PvP is an NPC. Your system is not better if while you are exploring a cave complex you thought was empty the party bard wanders into the room with the dark knight and gets auto-killed because "bards are support and not supposed to be good at combat."

You can go the 4e route of just making enemies not being fleshed out characters and just sparse combat stats, but then your game suffers from the storytelling side of things because your enemies are just a few combat stats. Your game is actually better if you know what an ememy can do out of combat rather than just being stuck with "and now the GM gives the enemy a bunch of out of combat stuff we can't anticipate or plan for because this system is weak sauce."

[shadzar]

I don't know where you get that DnD is not PVP. The default enemy of any adventure has always been "the evil wizard" who is explicitly using the same chassis as the party wizard, but a few levels higher.

Nope, only on rare occasions. You must mean the crap published by some company that can only come up with that as the BBEG.

While many adventures are good, they fail at BBEGs.

If you default assumption is that anyone will play a published game module/adventure wherein the NPCs is the same design format of the PCs, then you already have a flawed design process. That would be like saying everyone plays MtG for the tournaments, or everyone bought DDM for the minis game.

Adventures cannot be a part of the main game design focus. The adventures should be made AFTER the game, not looking to design the game cased around a tired idea for an adventure. (Tired ever since Gary kept using it....but then the world was human-centric as opposed to later when more races tended to take over.)

Bards are stupid and don't belong in the game, so anyone created will be auto-killed by the nearest normal-sized flea.

Along those lines, why should any one character fair as well as another if they wander off on their own? Why is the game focused around a group of players, if one is to wander off and always supposed to live? Some are going to be better at solo-ing on their own because the nature of the class. Such is life. If you cannot handle it, that all characters are not the same, then play the same character as everyone else in a game that allows for that.

The purpose is to take the obstacles presented in the game and overcome then together while telling the story of the characters.

Show me ANY good story/movie/etc where all the protagonists are equal in level of power properly balanced agaisnt each other. You won't find one, and likewise as with those forms of media, it is not needed in the game. The reason again is because it isn't competitive. It isn't HALO or MW2 where you work together, but get special awards during the game for the most kills or something. So a wizard shouldn't be going for that at high levels, and a fighter shouldn't be going for it alt low.

I can't explain bards in any edition, because they just make me sick in general and I don't play games with them in it.

If they are weaker in order to try to be all class groups at once, then it does make sense.

Take 1 multi-class human (I know should be dual-class but it owuld have to be quad class...) and 1 of each of the other type to make a party.

human multi (bard)
human rogue
human fighter
human thief
human wizard

With the races all the same, there should be some way that these all have the same power level right? Not possible. Given the same number of choices, the multi-class human will be weaker at everything compared to his counterparts. There would be no way to balance this bard-type class with the rest.

So while most published adventures may have had a BBEG using the same rules as the PCs, it does not make the game PvP. Player vs Player.

One main reason that it is not true, is simply NPCs are made in violation of the PC creation rules, rather than strict adherence of them.

Taking AD&D as the example (last published adventures I have), the players had all sorts of rules to what spells they could have, but the NPCs are given the pick of the litter. They get exactly what they need, without regards to whether they can learn it or not. Even Gary didn't use the PCs rules for NPCs, but used similar. Look at "Humans" in a monster manual and see how they vary form a standard created character.

If you sit at the game thinking of how to outdo another player, then is the only time you are entering PvP mindset.

Lets flip the discussion. Lets say you have a balanced game and it relies on everyone being able to play with all the perfect synergies. Aside from forcing someone to play a specific way, what happens when that shy player that isn't very open sits down to play? Are the not allowed to play because they cause a greater void in a more balanced game, than the one they could have created in past editions?

The balance in the game is not that of rule or law, but cooperation.

I see this whole thread in another on ENWorld, where some think that balance means not only the rules, but everyone else agreeing with you how to make your character when those rules are balanced. Like you have no say in how to make your character because someone else doesn't like that you made it that way because it isn't how they would have done it.

That is from 4th edition design that this happens more an more forcing optimization as some views in that thread over there. Is that really balance? You have a nice ruleset that weighs things out properly, but then what happens to the player balance?

Again, that is why I ask what are you really trying to balance?

If you have to balance things so people don't get butthurt they didn't do the most damage, then maybe the wrong people are playing the game, or playing it for the wrong reasons. If I were a designer, I would surely not waste time pandering to people who lose focus of the purpose of the game. If you want to deviate from the cooperative play, then you do so at your own risk, and can't fault any designer for it, then can you?


(The above are not all response to K, but some thoughts had while reading the aforementioned ENWorld thread as well. One that ties closely to the one created here by Lago about "How to be a good 4E character" which I started this thread so as not to clutter.)

[K]

Adventures cannot be a part of the main game design focus.

Yeh, you don't get to talk any more.

ADVENTURES ARE THE GAME. ADVENTURES ARE THE REASON WE HAVE A GAME AT ALL. WE DON'T EVEN NEED RULES IF WE DON'T HAVE ADVENTURES THAT THOSE RULES FACILITATE.

Ok, now you go back on my ignore.

[Caedrus]

Adventures cannot be a part of the main game design focus.

[Cielingcat]

What.

The.

Fuck?