The Myth of Game Balance

[wylodmayer]

Elsewhere on these boards, I participated in a thread on minmaxing, where most of the participants, myself included, acknowledged that in point-buy systems of character generation some people will make more efficient builds than others, and expressed acceptance of this fact. And of course, I don't need to say that random generation methods can lead to inequalities between characters. In fact, that's supposed to be the advantage of the point buy systems - characters are equal... or more equal, at least.

But, as many of us have acknowledged, even in point buy systems, characters can be very unequal in "power," although that term is notoriously slippery and ill-defined. Some argue that even characters who are "niche" builds have their uses, and they certainly do, but it is undeniable that some niche builds are more often useful than others, and even a very well-constructed character may seem of restricted usefulness simply because it is well-built toward answering a need that only rarely occurs (e.g., a brick character usually has more general opportunity to be useful than one optimized for deep sea adventures). The long and the short of it is that between efficient v. inefficient builds and players who design characters (efficiently or inefficiently) whose powers are less widely useful than "mainstream" characters, one party can easily wind up with a great disparity between the characters in terms of practical usefulness. This is the reason I call "game balance" a myth - characters are designed and played unequally, and almost never have equal footing in terms of "presence in the game," as it were... at least mechanically (I'm setting aside pure roleplay concerns, here).

So my question for discussion is this - do other GMs see it this way? Have my comments persuaded anyone? Even if you agree that characters are created and played unequally, do you strive to achieve game balance - i.e., to give all the characters an equal chance to be useful? How far do these concessions go? Is throwing the deep-sea character one underwater adventure "enough" to "balance" him against the brick in usefulness? Are GMs prepared to strain credibility to cater to niche characters to make them feel useful? Is there anyone out there who uses the "imbalance" for roleplaying fodder? Etc?

Obviously, a player's perspective would be interesting as well. Do you feel "cheated" when your character is less widely useful than another one? One would imagine that the guy who builds a deep-sea hero instead of a brick doesn't expect for his powers to come up as often, at least in full strength, but players can be surprising. Have you played in games where the characters were of unequal - perhaps vastly unequal - power levels? What kind of experience was it? Are you willing to accept the inequalities that arise from concept choice and lack of efficiency while being opposed to having a group with characters who start off with different point totals? To bring back those pure roleplay concerns I set aside earlier, would you be satisfied playing a less powerful character in the party if you knew you'd have a full and rich roleplay experience? Etc.

[Supreme Serpent]

Yes, game balance is a myth. I think guidelines and point-based systems are a good start for general eyeballing purposes.

As a GM, I absolutely will allow looser builds to allow 'neat' characters or powers to fit into X point limit. I'm also much more willing to allow potentially game-breaking stuff for some players vs others.

I do feel that characters can be roughly equivalent without being equal. To do so the GM has to enforce it or players have to be willing to do so on their own - if you've got the powerhouse, he needs to have definite weaknesses, if you've got a high dcv probably lower defenses, etc. As I've said in the past, most of the time, when someone proposes doing a 'varied power level game', they want to be the one playing Thor, not Falcon.

The weaker characters or niche characters can be fun, and even effective - they just often need to be more active in making use of what they CAN do well. If they don't try or if the GM stymies their efforts to try, yeah they can seem to suck. If your GM takes Aquaman to Desert World for half the campaign, you're looking at a lot of 'wasted' points and quite likely a dissatisfied player.

[OddHat]

Perfect balance is impossible, and I don't worry about it. Rough balance at least between character effectiveness in game if not in combat is possible, and worth shooting for.

Making sure that every character build is able to adequately serve the function desired by the player, and making sure that I make an effort to give each player a fair shake and a chance at more or less equal face time, is part of my job as a GM.

I do that in part by auditing builds carefully and discussing them with players before approval, building characters for players on request, keeping detailed notes, and thinking about the players and characters as I design adventures.

Sometimes I fail, in which case I try to learn from the failure and do better the next time. If I don't do a perfect job, I don't do a perfect job. It's only a niche role playing game.

[bigdamnhero]

I wouldn't say game balance is a myth so much as an ideal -- maybe we can't actually acheive perfect game balance, but we try to get reasonably close.

As for the how: what Oddhat said.

[bwdemon]

It seems like you might be confusing system game balance (point of X that does Z = point of Y that does Z) with campaign game balance (equal opportunity to use what you've got).

Perfect system game balance is not impossible (it is, however, improbable and needlessly complex). Despite this, better balance is nearly always possible and well within reason to achieve. Where imbalances are known to exist, the system should be altered to bring things back into balance. If not altered, they eventually become institutions and, for no reason other than that, people will fight to maintain them.

Perfect campaign game balance comes down to the PCs and the GM. Some GMs keep a strong reign on concepts to make sure they fit the planned game, while thers just let it go and work with what they're given (some take what they're given and work it into the planned game, regardless of what they're given). Some GMs restrain certain powers and power levels, while others don't appear to care. How the players and GM work together determines what sort of campaign game balance you'll see.

If a player really wants to play SuperSlasher - a bloodthirsty, knife wielding maniac of a "hero" - in a game that will be puppydogs and smiles Golden Age, then things just aren't going to work out. The concept just doesn't fit the game and shouldn't be allowed in that particular game.

What if someone wants to play Moody Loner in the Darkness, with abilities that assume the character will always be alone and will be effective only at night? Not exactly the sort of character you want in a team game and/or a game that has night and day components.

Upset that his two favorite builds are denied, someone now wants to play Bathroom Mentalist. Ever-present mentally, but never anywhere near conflict, this character poses all sorts of problems. This is very similar to The Invisible Punk and Desolid Except to Hurt You Lad. These guys just don't show up to the challenges that will be presented, so they aren't appropriate to most games.

So, tired of all this "your character doesn't fit" talk, someone decides to suck it up and play an Aquaman homage. He's really good in the water, but not so good out of it. He's still super-strong and pretty quick, so he won't be a pushover, but he won't really shine unless he gets some water around him. Depending on the build, he may need to be in water regularly. At this point, the character has chosen a somewhat restricted concept that otherwise fits the game. He won't be useless out of water, so he's probably a good fit. The GM now has responsibility to let the character shine from time to time.

Both system balance and campaign balance exist. Both are important to any game.

[NestorDRod]

I kind of lean to the extreme view that Game Balance is a myth. Completely and totally. To the point where pursuing it in the context of roleplaying is futile and unnecessary.

There is no "win/lose" paradigm in a RPG, at least from the player's point of view. There are no victory conditions; that's a hold-out from the heritage of tactical wargames that RPGs evolved from.

I contend that you can run a successful and entertaining run regardless of any disparages in point values for either PCs of NPCs. It's not how many points your character is written up with, it's how you play it. If a player feels his character is underused or underpowered, it's because he's either not making the effort to make his character useful or the GM's not paying attention.

[Patriot]

Simply put, It's a Myth, as 2 people with the exact same hero write-up will get different mileage from the same toon. Its all the player...

[eternal_sage]

i also feel that it is, if not mythical, so idealized that it may as well be legendary. the only way to mechanically balance a system is to ensure that every one plays the same character. but even then, my wife may think of a use for ice powers that i don't (freezing the limbs of a giant robot) and thus making her use of the same power set better.

in my opinion, the only bad character is the one the player dislikes. i try to be very up front with my players (and my GM, if i finally get the chance to lay the screen asside for a minute) to let them understand some of the possible problems i forsee with builds like "deep sea dude". if they understand that power x will only REALLY be useful once, but still wants it, well hell. its your character. as long as you are happy.

for instance, my wife's cohort in our d20 Warlords of the Accordlands game is a paladin who found out that his entire religion is... not nice is the best spoiler free thing to say, i guess. so she had him attone and change from worshipping the Storm, to worshipping Albrecht (LE to LG shift there). she was buying his new sword (he smelted down the other one to make spears for a bunch of commoner dwarves overrun by abyssals) she wanted Storm Bane on it. i told her that she will never use that ability throughout the course of the rest of the campaign, because that was not the focus. she said "thats okay, he still hates the Storm" and used most of the gold he had to his name to buy a useless weapon for him. she's cool, i'm cool. (altough i may slip a stormborn or three in somewhere, just to see her face light up at the chance to use the thing)

[wylodmayer]

I'm really happy with the responses I've gotten so far!

(and, by the way, bwdemon, I'm not so much confusing those two things as asking whether they are, in fact, different or not)

Just to tip my hand in this, since I started the convo on the topic, I tend to lean closer to Nestor and sage's points of view, although I am sympathetic to the notion that there are times where it's good to at least try for some game balance.

Generally, I have no problem with a player who makes a "useless" character, as long as he knows what he's getting into (as eternal sage mentions). Besides, I've seen some people take some very restricted concepts and totally go "when all you have is a hammer..." on me, finding extremely creative ways to bend situations around 'til everyone winds up playing in his home court. Heck, I'm known for doing it myself, sometimes.

On the whole, though, I rarely worry about game balance at all, even to the point of not caring much whether PCs are even built on the same number of points. As long as I trust my players, and they understand that this is about roleplaying, I've found it works okay. I ran one campaign where one player had his PC from the previous campaign set in the same universe, a very experienced hero, another player had a fairly versatile and tough novice, and the other two were effectively low-end skilled normals. It ran great. Tons of good roleplaying.

As long as the players are happy, I'm cool. I've never had trouble finding challenges that adequately keep everyone happy, although that may be easier in games where death is harder to come by - in DnD, for instance, it would be a lot harder to challenge the 15th lvl Fighter without killing the 7th level Courtier, say. But in superhero games, I've had a lot of success with it.

[Mike W]

Elsewhere on these boards, I participated in a thread on minmaxing, where most of the participants, myself included, acknowledged that in point-buy systems of character generation some people will make more efficient builds than others, and expressed acceptance of this fact. And of course, I don't need to say that random generation methods can lead to inequalities between characters. In fact, that's supposed to be the advantage of the point buy systems - characters are equal... or more equal, at least.

But, as many of us have acknowledged, even in point buy systems, characters can be very unequal in "power," although that term is notoriously slippery and ill-defined. Some argue that even characters who are "niche" builds have their uses, and they certainly do, but it is undeniable that some niche builds are more often useful than others, and even a very well-constructed character may seem of restricted usefulness simply because it is well-built toward answering a need that only rarely occurs (e.g., a brick character usually has more general opportunity to be useful than one optimized for deep sea adventures). The long and the short of it is that between efficient v. inefficient builds and players who design characters (efficiently or inefficiently) whose powers are less widely useful than "mainstream" characters, one party can easily wind up with a great disparity between the characters in terms of practical usefulness. This is the reason I call "game balance" a myth - characters are designed and played unequally, and almost never have equal footing in terms of "presence in the game," as it were... at least mechanically (I'm setting aside pure roleplay concerns, here).

So my question for discussion is this - do other GMs see it this way? Have my comments persuaded anyone? Even if you agree that characters are created and played unequally, do you strive to achieve game balance - i.e., to give all the characters an equal chance to be useful? How far do these concessions go? Is throwing the deep-sea character one underwater adventure "enough" to "balance" him against the brick in usefulness? Are GMs prepared to strain credibility to cater to niche characters to make them feel useful? Is there anyone out there who uses the "imbalance" for roleplaying fodder? Etc?

Obviously, a player's perspective would be interesting as well. Do you feel "cheated" when your character is less widely useful than another one? One would imagine that the guy who builds a deep-sea hero instead of a brick doesn't expect for his powers to come up as often, at least in full strength, but players can be surprising. Have you played in games where the characters were of unequal - perhaps vastly unequal - power levels? What kind of experience was it? Are you willing to accept the inequalities that arise from concept choice and lack of efficiency while being opposed to having a group with characters who start off with different point totals? To bring back those pure roleplay concerns I set aside earlier, would you be satisfied playing a less powerful character in the party if you knew you'd have a full and rich roleplay experience? Etc.

I would disagree with a couple things here.

First, the primary advantage of point buy systems, as opposed to random roll systems is the ability to more accurately build the character you envision. In Champions, if you want to play a brick, you can play a brick. In the old Marvel Super Heroes game where you had to randomly roll everything, you could end up with the strength of an average human and have to build a completely different kind of character.

Second, character balance does not just mean that everyone is equal all the time or even in general. Not really. It's not realistic. Even if you gave 6 players identical characters to start out with. Right from the first session, some players would be more creative and get more out of the characters than others and each would inevitably take their character a different direction. Character balance just means that they are close enough in overall ability that they can "play on the same field" as it were, so that parts of the adventure don't have to be rewritten because one character is too powerful or too good at something. The power levels will always be unequal but they need to be approximately even so that you don't have to say, add 10 DEF to a guy just because of one character.

[Curufea]

To me, point buy systems are a way of equating a character to the world the system simulates in a more easily understood manner.
It is much easier to compare X points in this power to Y points of this defense for an object - than it is to say, compare X die modifier to Y table with Z modifiers.

However, that being said - I don't do balance. It's a very gamist ideal to have players and environment "balanced". I don't see the point, as I prefer the roleplaying aspects than the wargaming aspects of RPGs.

Balance does not create better roleplaying - nor does it alleviate the problems with powergamer/munchkin players. It merely gives everyone the illusion that it fixes problems.

[Scott Baker]

I have to second (and third) what Oddhat and bigdamnhero said. They summed up my take on the situation nicely.

Scott Baker

[eternal_sage]

my first shot at running Shadowrun (4th ed, yeah i'm a bit of a newb), i did not explain to my players well enough the idea of the game, so everyone came to the table with a FANTASTIC but boring group of runners. we had a mystic adept face, a technomancer elf, and a raging, cybered up troll known as Vuk the Destroyer.

they were unbeatable, because each of them specialized to the point of being a starting character who could only advance a few ranks in their chosen special fields before hitting the cap (hell, Vuk had to get some new cyberware to get any better at splattering his foes into goo), but out of their element, they were totally toast.

my wife (technomancer) would be busy hacking something, while Vuk was killing on average 2 foes a round with his crazy axe, and the face would stand there. or the face would talk their way through some big mess, my wife would hack something, and Vuk (actually his player Rob) would read my newest X-Men comic. if an all out battle broke out, they both just stood behind Vuk, who was practically unkillable, and all was well.

the moral of the story was that the characters were all "balanced" in that they were equally good at a set of actions that was intergral to the game, but it was totally out of whack, because at least 1/3rd of the characters were bored at any one time (altough Vuk trying to pick up troll chicks at a nightclub was totally hilarious). i suppose that making each character more generalized (as opposed to specialized) would have solved the problem, but it still highlights my point that some forms of "balance" (which someone above related to being generally useful) still does not fix anything.

[Killer Shrike]

Relevance and Reliability (http://www.killershrike.com/GeneralHERO/HERO5RelvanceReliablity.htm)

[wylodmayer]

my first shot at running Shadowrun (4th ed, yeah i'm a bit of a newb), i did not explain to my players well enough the idea of the game...

This just goes to show the differences in gaming styles. That pretty well describes our Shadowrun games (although I spit upon 4th edition and will never convert! NEVER!), and we wouldn't change a thing. We have two Samurais and a combat worthy Shaman. There's a Mage, but he only has a pistol and one combat spell. I'm the decker, and there's a rigger.

I deck. I tend to stay with the rigger, in his armored van, using his satlink to deck in with. We never get anywhere too close to the run-site unless special circumstances call for it, and when they do, I guarantee you the decker will be griping about it. Splinters (the rigger) and Wondergirl (the decker) are almost never with the team on runs. On the few occasions when they have been, in combats, they tend to take cover. Wondergirl carries a pistol, but she has bare minimum ranks in it. Same for Splinters.

The mage, Krises, actually did okay in combat because he bought Manabolt at 6 dice, but that was his one trick in battle. He had a pistol, too, and was mediocre with it. Mainly, he was a face. In combat, he stayed back, used Manabolt and his pistol to help out, but his magic was mostly not useful in battle. The Sams and the Shaman handled that stuff, and they went off to have drinks and hit on bar skanks while Wondergirl and Krises did the face stuff. Wondergirl and Splinters handled the tech, and Sidewinder (the Shaman) and Krises handled anything magical and weird.

We took turns being in the spotlight. When we weren't in it, we roleplayed or waited. Looked over our character sheets, whatever. It's not necessarily logical - especially in a modern or future game - for characters to be broad generalists. Specialists are just often necessary. Never bothered any of us at all. Heck, seemed like the way things were supposed to work.

That's why they run in teams.

[Enforcer84]

As long as everyone has fun.

















and I win.

[bwdemon]

(and, by the way, bwdemon, I'm not so much confusing those two things as asking whether they are, in fact, different or not)

They're very much different. One is a product of the system, the other is a product of the GM/PC interaction.


Just to tip my hand in this, since I started the convo on the topic, I tend to lean closer to Nestor and sage's points of view, although I am sympathetic to the notion that there are times where it's good to at least try for some game balance.

Think about this the other way, then. Is there a time when having unbalanced mechanics is better than having balanced mechanics?

My answer is yes, but only when achieving the balance causes needless complication. If a change toward better balance does not complicate the game significantly or, as is true in many cases, actually simplifies the game, then every step should be taken toward achieving that balance.

And, the other half of the question: is there a time when having an unbalanced campaign is better than having a balanced campaign? By balanced campaign, I mean reasonably equal time in the spotlight for all the characters involved over the life of the campaign.

My answer here is a near-absolute "NO!" assuming that all players have a reasonably equal investment in the game. This brings up two situations: 1) one or more players want more time; and 2) one or more players want less time.

If certain players want more time, then that's what blue-booking is for. I've even gone so far as to schedule side sessions for players who want more time, so that I don't have to give them that time in the normal game session. This keeps the "more time" players happy by giving them what they want and keeps the normal players happy by not stealing more of their time.

If a player honestly doesn't care what the story is or how his character fits in it, but just shows up to be around friends, then you can probably ease up on the portion of the game you planned on dedicating toward that player. I'd talk with them first and explain that I'm willing to focus on the character if asked, whenever asked, but that I plan to focus more heavily on the other characters until then.

[Kristopher]

This just goes to show the differences in gaming styles. That pretty well describes our Shadowrun games (although I spit upon 4th edition and will never convert! NEVER!), and we wouldn't change a thing. We have two Samurais and a combat worthy Shaman. There's a Mage, but he only has a pistol and one combat spell. I'm the decker, and there's a rigger.

I deck. I tend to stay with the rigger, in his armored van, using his satlink to deck in with. We never get anywhere too close to the run-site unless special circumstances call for it, and when they do, I guarantee you the decker will be griping about it. Splinters (the rigger) and Wondergirl (the decker) are almost never with the team on runs. On the few occasions when they have been, in combats, they tend to take cover. Wondergirl carries a pistol, but she has bare minimum ranks in it. Same for Splinters.

The mage, Krises, actually did okay in combat because he bought Manabolt at 6 dice, but that was his one trick in battle. He had a pistol, too, and was mediocre with it. Mainly, he was a face. In combat, he stayed back, used Manabolt and his pistol to help out, but his magic was mostly not useful in battle. The Sams and the Shaman handled that stuff, and they went off to have drinks and hit on bar skanks while Wondergirl and Krises did the face stuff. Wondergirl and Splinters handled the tech, and Sidewinder (the Shaman) and Krises handled anything magical and weird.

We took turns being in the spotlight. When we weren't in it, we roleplayed or waited. Looked over our character sheets, whatever. It's not necessarily logical - especially in a modern or future game - for characters to be broad generalists. Specialists are just often necessary. Never bothered any of us at all. Heck, seemed like the way things were supposed to work.

That's why they run in teams.

If you look at real spec ops or wetworks teams, none of them will be combat-inept. It just doesn't work out very well. It's a staple of fiction, not reality, to have along the "guy who doesn't fight well, at least until the dramatically appropriate moment near the climax".

[eternal_sage]

well, first off, (i'm guessing you play 3rd ed, wylodmayer) technomancers are like otaku (i think was the 3rd term) in that they can hack from anywhere, without equipment. (even normal "deckers" don't "deck" anymore, they have wireless equipment, thank god, that actually seems futuristic, as opposed to the 80's of the future :) ) so they are pretty much always out on runs now, which is much cooler.

second, by specialized, i mean Vuk had maxed out physical attributes, combat skills, cyberware for those attributes and skills, and good equipment. of course, that means that all his mental stats were 1 (he had a social inept thing that made him basically have a 0 in charisma, sorry can't remember actual game terms at the moment, no book nearby). it was special, like the shortbus. especially when he found he could split his 22 dicepool between two foes in one round. the SWAT guys who were supposed to scare them off were just a good place to get equipment for Vuk. he, solo, took out 8 SWAT officers in full riot gear (whatever the best armor was, can't remember) in four rounds, and only lost about half of his health. then he had new armor, and was never really damaged again.

and each character was built in a similar (altough not exactly as one sided) way. it was fun, but with only 3 characters, it didn't go as well as i would hope.

[wylodmayer]

My answer here is a near-absolute "NO!" assuming that all players have a reasonably equal investment in the game...If a player honestly doesn't care what the story is or how his character fits in it, but just shows up to be around friends, then you can probably ease up on the portion of the game you planned on dedicating toward that player.

Which means that, in that case, it's okay or even "better" (what a tough quantification THAT is to make!) to have an "unbalanced" game.

Seriously, though, I generally agree with all the points you're raising, ESPECIALLY about mechanics. I have run and played in games where I would have happily sacrificed the balance they sought so hard to achieve for a little more, well, playability.

Of course, that is an issue lurking in the background of my original question. Point buy systems are usually more complex than non point buy systems. Although you (was that you who said it?) rightly point out that point systems are JUST about balance, but also about getting you your desired concept, the question remains - if we could guarantee concept on a non-points based system, would we still want to use a points-based system? Or is the complexity of a system like HERO not worth the increased playability (once concept is secured for the player and that's off the table as an issue) of something less "fiddly"? I dunno, I'm just rambling here and thinking out loud.


If you look at real spec ops or wetworks teams, none of them will be combat-inept. It just doesn't work out very well. It's a staple of fiction, not reality, to have along the "guy who doesn't fight well, at least until the dramatically appropriate moment near the climax".

Well, we aren't really special ops guys - we're criminals who occasionally pool our talents on jobs too big for just one person. And with criminals, that is what happens a lot. People have "niches." In any case, as the campaign went on, the non com types started buy some combat skills. I never said we were inept - I just said that I had no problem sitting aside while the combat guys did what they did best. And vice versa.


well, first off, (i'm guessing you play 3rd ed, wylodmayer) technomancers are like otaku...

Okay, no offense, but I think 4th edition rots and I'll sooner flay my own skin from my body than play it. Just saying.


second, by specialized, i mean Vuk had maxed out physical attributes, combat skills, cyberware for those attributes and skills, and good equipment. of course, that means that all his mental stats were 1

I can't believe you let him get away with that. Did the player make combat decisions? Did he make good ones? Nope. Nope nope nope nope. He's playing Timmy the Guy With the Red Plastic Helmet and being THAT dumb would have - should have - seriously cut into his combat abilities.

But then, this is another reason 3rd is the best. First, combat pool in 3rd was a function of Quickness, Intelligence, and Willpower, and a guy with 1s in the latter two would have had a crappy combat pool, no matter HOW much cyber he had. Second, a low Willpower would have made him dog food for wage mages. Even a burnout with a 3 Force manabolt could toast that guy. All that expensive cyber would have been worthless for that. I don't know what they broke in 4th, but in 3rd, that character would have been dead inside of one round.

[huscarl]

Personally I dont believe game balance its a myth. There are 2 parts to the balance, the first is the mechanics of the character design stage, the second is how the character fits into the campaign.

The first is a necessity, the second is highly desirable.

All the Characters should start equal. If a Player is more familiar with the system or a better rules lawyer, its the GM's responsibility to make sure that does not translate into effectively more points to build his character from.

In the Campaign, all the characters will not be equally useful at all times. It would be a bit boring if they were, but they will all get their chance to shine in the sun. If a skill or ability is unlikely to ever be used, the GM should give them a heads up during character creation.

I find it helps if you give them a benchmark of the sort of attack levels that Henchmen, and Lt's will use, that way they know what combat ability they need to portray their character, as they envision it.
As long as the GM made sure of the first point, then if one character is substantially better in one field than the others, he must perforce be weak in other fields, and so they will even out.

Hero System.
A points buy system is flexable but at the cost of being open to abuse. In Hero system I feel the flaw is that it suggests a substantial amount of the points are made up from character disadvantages and power limitations. This leads to a tacit acceptance that some non-limiting limitations, or disadvantages which arent, needs to be allowed.

A lot of the later problems can be avoided by knocking this on the head. Decide on the power level of the campaign, and give people most of that in points, and make the few disadvantages real ones which will help the role-playing, and power limitations that again feed into the roleplaying rather than just being maths to get points. Rigourously weed out any and all non-limiting limitations, by which I mean, if as GM you are never going to bring that limitation into play, then its not a limitation.
This shifts the emphasis and puts role-playing center stage rather than maths.

Of course this may not work for everyone, just my opinion on things.

[bwdemon]

If we could guarantee concept on a non-points based system, would we still want to use a points-based system?[quote]

I still say yes. I'm a big fan of point-buy systems and don't have much use for randomized systems. Part of that is due to me rolling TERRIBLE under any circumstance requiring a good roll. ;)

[quote]Or is the complexity of a system like HERO not worth the increased playability (once concept is secured for the player and that's off the table as an issue) of something less "fiddly"?

HERO has lots of unnecessary overcomplication. KAs aren't a necessary mechanic and they're unbalanced (I've got threads all over the Champions board and HERO SYstem board on this). Force Field and Armor are completely unnecessary, given the existence of PD and ED, and unbalanced (cost/benefit). Instant Change went from being a few words to some complicated Transform effect. All powers should be visible (except invisibility, though it is obvious that the character is invisible, right?)... yadda yadda yadda. Do away with the needless complications, remove some imbalances, and the game is better all around.

In other words, just because a system is point-based doesn't mean that it is balanced or that all levels of complication are necessary and helpful to the game. Often, you can sacrifice some elements while maintaining the same degree of flexibility and achieving greater system balance.

[eternal_sage]

I can't believe you let him get away with that. Did the player make combat decisions? Did he make good ones? Nope. Nope nope nope nope. He's playing Timmy the Guy With the Red Plastic Helmet and being THAT dumb would have - should have - seriously cut into his combat abilities.

But then, this is another reason 3rd is the best. First, combat pool in 3rd was a function of Quickness, Intelligence, and Willpower, and a guy with 1s in the latter two would have had a crappy combat pool, no matter HOW much cyber he had. Second, a low Willpower would have made him dog food for wage mages. Even a burnout with a 3 Force manabolt could toast that guy. All that expensive cyber would have been worthless for that. I don't know what they broke in 4th, but in 3rd, that character would have been dead inside of one round.

first off, no offense taken really, i think 3rd was a little worse (but i only played it once, many years back, so memory fails and what have you :) ) i'm not interested in a which stick is better, as they both hit pretty well.

second, he was pretty ineffective mentally, obviously (and a mage screwed him up BAD in one session). in 4th, a 1 means weak, not incapable (there is a quality that makes it that what though, as a disad). he was bound to the elf, who saved him from a underground bloodsport pit, and she basically directed him in battle ("smash that group", "cover our retreat" etc.) but yea, it was a little silly.

as a slight justification, it WAS my first expirience with a point buy system that did not enforce some sort of balance (previously only having done d20, and nWoD which only lets you spend a certain amount in certain areas) so i figured it was all good as far as the game was concerned. he did have a major weakness (or three) that were easily exploitable (take away elf, mind trick him, make him figure out the elevator controls by himself) so i figured it was a gravy. i was wrong, i have learned (only after being busted again the first time i played Champions) and i now give point caps and the like the respect they deserve, and understand that just because you CAN do something in a straight point buy, doesn't mean it should be allowed. lesson learned! i'm sorry already!! :)

[Hyper-Man]

[quote=wylodmayer;1386438]If we could guarantee concept on a non-points based system, would we still want to use a points-based system?[quote]

I still say yes. I'm a big fan of point-buy systems and don't have much use for randomized systems. Part of that is due to me rolling TERRIBLE under any circumstance requiring a good roll. ;)



HERO has lots of unnecessary overcomplication. KAs aren't a necessary mechanic and they're unbalanced (I've got threads all over the Champions board and HERO SYstem board on this). Force Field and Armor are completely unnecessary, given the existence of PD and ED, and unbalanced (cost/benefit). Instant Change went from being a few words to some complicated Transform effect. All powers should be visible (except invisibility, though it is obvious that the character is invisible, right?)... yadda yadda yadda. Do away with the needless complications, remove some imbalances, and the game is better all around.

In other words, just because a system is point-based doesn't mean that it is balanced or that all levels of complication are necessary and helpful to the game. Often, you can sacrifice some elements while maintaining the same degree of flexibility and achieving greater system balance.

It sounds as though you don't want HERO to publish any base-line abilities (like Talents). It's usefulness to gamers with limited time to stat everything would be diminished. Killing Attacks, AP, Penetrating... heck even PD and ED are all things that would get recreated by someone if they didn't officially exist in the rules. The same goes for Armor, Damage Resistance and Force Field. They are examples of powers that are built with other powers (just like Talents; see Combat Luck). Each has a useful niche to fill in the rules. 4th ed. Instant Change was simple but what happened when someone added Usable As Attack to it? What's the defense to having one's clothes changed around even if only in a cosmetic way??


50 Armor-Like: Force Field (10 PD/10 ED), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Invisible Power Effects, SFX Only (Fully Invisible; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2) (50 Active Points) - END=0
30 Default: Armor (10 PD/10 ED) [Notes: Armor is IPE and Persistent by default. Both of these 'free' Advantages are forfieted when any type of Costs END Limitation is taken.] - END=0
30 Armor-Like Damage Resistance (10 PD/ 10 ED): (Total: 30 Active Cost, 30 Real Cost) +10 PD (Real Cost: 10) plus +10 ED (Real Cost: 10) plus Damage Resistance (10 PD/10 ED) (Real Cost: 10) [Notes: Like Armor, this combo is also IPE and Persistent by default. Both of these 'free' Advantages are forfieted when any type of Costs END Limitation is taken.] - END=0
21 Force Field-Like Damage Resistance: (Total: 30 Active Cost, 21 Real Cost) +10 PD (10 Active Points); Costs Endurance (-1/2) (Real Cost: 7) plus +10 ED (10 Active Points); Costs Endurance (-1/2) (Real Cost: 7) plus Damage Resistance (10 PD/10 ED) (10 Active Points); Costs Endurance (-1/2) (Real Cost: 7) - END=3

Making ALL powers visible doesn't make sense. Do sensory abilities get an exception too? What about Luck or Lack of Weakness? Where does it end?

END cost is a good way to decide whether powers are visible or not imo.

[Greywind]

The system and player mentality tends to favor efficiency. Getting the most out of every point a player is allowed for his character.

Players don't want/build characters that are inefficient. Kind of like a D20 reference where if your stats don't generate an above average person the character is useless (too much of a challenge to play in system).

[bwdemon]

It sounds as though you don't want HERO to publish any base-line abilities (like Talents).

Not quite. In many cases, "non-power" powers should just use powers. It isn't like we don't have plenty of descriptors out there now to take care of the issue. In some cases, it helps to differentiate.


Killing Attacks, AP, Penetrating... heck even PD and ED are all things that would get recreated by someone if they didn't officially exist in the rules.

I never said anything about AP, Penetrating, or PD & ED. I'm good with those (though I would consider combining PD & ED into DEF, you could always buy DEF vs. Physical or Energy Only if you wanted to limit it). Killing Attacks just aren't necessary, though. As is, KAs are a needless complication with a non-standard resolution mechanism and non-standard results when compared with the other damage systems in the game.

I know, I know: how am I supposed to get out of Entangles without my swiss army knife multipower no range RKA slot?! You use your normal attack, maybe? How will I kill things?! Use realistic defenses and/or the hit location chart?

If you want to build a more deadly attack, allow dice with the modifier "Body Only" and you're done. If you're desperate to get more deadly bang for your point-shaving buck, you make it into its own power (call it Killing Attack if it makes you feel better) using the Normal Damage mechanic and only doing Body (to come in with fewer AP).


The same goes for Armor, Damage Resistance and Force Field.

All of these can go. DR can go, because KAs are gone. Armor and Force Field can go, because they become SFX of extra PD & ED. HERO uses Energy Blast as a mechanic because it doesn't make sense to overcomplicate with different attack powers for every energy type, but then it goes with Armor and Force Fields, giving them unbalanced costs for the benefits they give and creating a completely unnecessary complication.


They are examples of powers that are built with other powers (just like Talents; see Combat Luck). Each has a useful niche to fill in the rules.

They fill a niche like assorted garage sale knick-knacks used to fill my grandma's house: they aren't necessary and all they do is clutter up the place. Some very few are helpful, while most are needless complications.


4th ed. Instant Change was simple but what happened when someone added Usable As Attack to it? What's the defense to having one's clothes changed around even if only in a cosmetic way??

That's more a problem with Usable as Attack than with Instant Change. As far as I'm concerned, if someone wants to spend the points, so be it. The 4th edition version would cost 20pts (IIRC, my old books are boxed). The 5th edition version would cost 15pts. I'm more comfortable with the 4th edition pricing. As far as the defense goes, there must be a reasonably common defense, approved by the GM, for all UAA powers. If I'm a GM, I'm only going to allow changes to and from normal clothing.

In the grand scheme of things, Instant Change is an annoyance power as an attack. It can have no other effect than cosmetic change of clothing. This is one of the cases where a niche would be filled by retaining the power. Instead, players have to go hunting through the book for something that is a comic book standard.

Yet, we have Force Field (resistant PD & ED that costs END) and Armor (an invisible, persistent, 0 end force field that costs the same as resistant PD & ED). Instead, by losing some needless complication, we could have PD & ED with SFX describing it as whatever you want it to be - adopting the Energy Blast model - and rebalancing that aspect of the system. Drop the aberrant KA mechanic and resistant is no longer necessary.

Now, why should all powers be visible by default? Mainly because invisibility is an advantage and nothing should get it for free. If you do take a power and want it to be invisible, then pay for that advantage. It's a balance issue more than anything else.

[Matt Frisbee]

Game balance is not something I worry too much about as a GM. I try to come up with challenges equal to the abilities of my players and their characters -- which doesn't mean I tailor each scenario precisely to complement the characters.

Legally, all players are supposed to be created equal -- as are their characters in a point-based system. If you have been a GM for any length of time, you know that simply isn't true. You also know that many players get frustrated when their "perfect" character gets parts of their anatomy handed to them by a baddie who is a little more than they can handle.

The real test of a good player (which I value significantly more than great characters) is what happens next. If the beaten hero picks himself up and resolves to do better next time (or make the current situation right), he's got what it takes to be a hero and will do well regardless of the character build issues. If the player starts asking me what he can do to make his charactrer more combat effective, I know that he is either 1) very new to this, or 2) never going to be happy until he has a combat monster that nothing can touch.

Game balance isn't the issue -- player quality is. If you have great players, it won't matter much what system you're using for what genre -- they'll get in there and rise to whatever challenge you throw at them, irregardless of their character limitations.

So instead of worrying about game balance, worry about getting the right people to your table -- that way, you'll have fun everytime you play. After all, if the players are elevating their game, that means the GM is going to have to stay on his toes as well. And I really like being challenged by my players rather than trying to compensate for their limitations.

'Nuff Said.

Matt "Still-on-the-old-school-soapbox" Frisbee

[Markdoc]

If game balance was a myth, then I wouldn't have seen it cause problems in games so often (occasionally to the point of ruining or ending a game). I'd take Nestor's bold assertion that game balance is a myth a bit more seriously if I hadn't heard him complain in real life about game balance problems in one of our games. :D And he was right, I should add - imbalance between characters did eventually contribute to the game's demise.

I think the myth is the idea that we have a system that "takes care" of balance issues. Hero system does a decent job, and provides good tools for assessing balance, but it's far from infallible. I'm not sure any system could offer both flexibility and perfect balance.

Just to make it plain, I'm not talking about "play balance" - the kind of tradeoffs in face time for players or relative importance of already mentioned. Those are personal interactions and largely beyond the scope of any sort of rules-writing - it's already been pointed out that you can give the exact same character sheet (in almost any system) to two players and one can make it much more "effective" (whether in terms of earning face time or in terms of meeting in-game goals)

However, what a rules system can do is avoid exacerbating this problem by giving different characters the potential to be equally "effective".

A couple of examples from our current games - same player, largely the same group, so that pretty much removes play balance issues.

Group #1 (Hero system). The player plays a supporting character, who doesn't excel in any particular "game aspect" like face, magic, stealth or straight HTH combat. However, the character has a number of useful non-combat abilities and can function as a backup in stealth and combat.
The player is happy, and although getting less facetime than some other players is enthusiastic about the game and contributes by roleplaying.

Group #2 (D&D 3.0) The player plays a supporting character, who doesn't excel in any particular "game aspect" like face, magic, stealth or straight HTH combat - largely due to poorer initial Stat rolls than some of the "star players" combined with some poor early choices in choosing Feats. However the player can function as a backup in magic and combat.
The player is unhappy, and tends to be withdrawn in-game and/or complain outside the game. She participates largely for the social aspect.

That's a game balance issue. This is not a slam on D&D: there are a number of possible fixes, including simply using point-buy rules: it's just the current example.

In this case, the issue could have been partly resolved by the GM allowing her to retroactively alter Feat Choices (he did in fact make that offer) or by slipping her character some magic to boost stat.s, but the fact that such "in-game tinkering" is required identifies a game balance issue: the way the rules forced an imbalance between characters.

The problem is not that the player demands more face time or other play balance issues - it's that in one case, the player chose the way their character was built: which resulted in a support character and in the other case the player feels "forced" into a support role, which she didn't choose - simply because the other characters outshine her based (in her opinion) on random lucky rolls. That's a game balance issue right there.

So, no, game balance is not a myth: it's something that any GM who wishes to run a prolonged campaign is going to have to address one way or another.

cheers, Mark

[MPT]

Yes, it is impossible for there to be play balance for the following reasons:

a) As stated in the opening post, some players are just better at creating more rounded and efficient characters than others.

In the campaigns that I run, or play in, we tend to emphasise role playing over combat. Those players whose characters have a range of skills may therefore be more "powerful" in terms of their overall effectiveness than a character that is purely maximised for combat.

b) Some players are better at using their characters than others.

With combat being de-emphasised, those players (not PCs) who are good at Diplomacy and figuring out solutions will always effectively have more "powerful" PCs than the other players because they know when and how to use both their own and their PCs abilities.

One thing that we always allow is for players to make some changes to their characters after they have run them for a few sessions. This enables them to make the PC more effective for the type of campaign that is being run.

[Trebuchet]

I think game balance, like a perfect democracy, is an ideal, not a condition. It's something you strive towards, knowing you'll never reach it but that the attempt is worthwhile in its own right. You don't get to set something up, say "THIS is perfection!", and rest on your laurels. There will always be tensions between the positions of flexibility and static balance. Our Founding Fathers recognized this explicitly when they created a routine for altering the US Constitution. They were working "towards a more perfect union," not declaring they'd finally built one.

[Publius]

In terms of game balance, which I do believe in btw, there is a problem when one type of character is significantly better than another from the start. The elf in D&D is an excellent example. A buddy of mine who is into PBeMs says that the vast majority of the characters other people bring are elves. No disease, no paralysis, better vision, yadyada. Maybe they all want to be a fairy princess, but I'm thinking it is a broad spectrum of advantages with practically no disadvantages and therefore a "better pick". I remember the "Book of Elves" back in 2nd Ed which gave them even more stuff. Rolemaster has a lot of these in Shadowworld, the races are simply not even. I understand that some are going to be better than others, but geez, in a game there ought to be something done to balance things out so that someone isn't relegated to the weak & dumb race.

The buddy I mentioned above was in a game in which the party consisted of a bunch of elves, himself (the lone human) and a were of some sort. A... were... which could not be damaged by normal weapons... and could transform into a dangerous creature... I don;t know if the new editions support this or not, I presume they do. Now, had the players been started at 8th or 9th level, no problem. Special abilities, spells at higher level, magic weapons are more common etc. But at 1st or 2nd? d4 hit-die types can still get whacked by one swordblow and you have a Were... Needless to say he eventually quit that group, because despite the fact that he was the only one doing any actually role-playing he was essentially the weak sister for the game, having to deal with all sorts of things the others didn't just because they were elves (and a were).

[eternal_sage]

basically (having expierence building DnD races and classes) there is no way of TRULY balancing them, as there is no actual system to do so. its simply a matter of "this looks good" or "i think this will not piss everyone off," which is not very condusive to balance, because its all at the whims of the creator. in fact, this (among NUMEROUS other reasons) is one reason i've started converting all of my old setting over to Fantasy HERO. there i can say "this point total fits within the standard deviation of point costs i'm looking for" or "this power is easily scalable, so it will be useful the whole life of the character".

DnD's system is flawed at the core. well, not the core, i suppose, as the idea of "d20 rolls make the world go round" is pretty decent. but anything past the simple idea of skill checks, saving throws, and PARTS of the combat system, nothing really works, its all just a series of "this way because i say so". i mean seriously, before i found HERO i was contemplating creating house rules for doing away with levels, adding defense that is actually...you know... defense, and taking out classes.

about three pages into my notes, my friend Alex told me about HERO, and it works better, because everything at least has a justification. after about a year, i am starting to see weaknesses in HERO, but it is still LIGHTYEARS beyond d20 in terms of balance, because you have an actual scale to measure with.

[copeab]

Even discounting point efficiency, it's easily possible for two characters of equal point totals to be completely different in terms of their usefulness in a campaign. This is why a GM needs to work with a player when they design a character for the campaign, starting with asking for a statless character concept (a bad concept is more of a problem than a bad build).

Generally, each PC needs to have a vital (or perhaps not so vital) "niche moment" per adventure (or once per session in some cases). This may require a PC who has more general abilities and could handle the situation to step aside and let another PC perform his niche role. Spotlight hogs (who attempt to constantly be at the center of attention) are really annoying.

[Mentor]

I mostly view game balance as a process rather than a place. In a campaign, there are often scenarios in which on of our PCs is almost useless in combat or serving in a support role at best.

Ideally, the GM is able to have an important role for that character in the next encounter or the one after that. Thus in the larger context of a campaign, game balance gets achieved, rather than in each individual game session or encounter.

Some players are extremely passive and as such need to be a little more stage managed in having their characters respond while others are so aggressive as to require a seat belt for the GM and rest of the team.

Ultimately, some players are natural leaders and are going to be more decisive than others and sometime the game just plays out that way. That does not automatically constitute imbalance, IMO. Some characters and players learn to be patient while others learn to be more assertive.

While some basic guidelines still exist for PC abilities in our campaign, they are not hard caps and are arbitrated by five GMs all of who also play. So far, nobody has stepped on the role that other characters generall fill, due to cooperation and communication on the part of all players in the campaign.

[wylodmayer]

Game balance isn't the issue -- player quality is. If you have great players, it won't matter much what system you're using for what genre -- they'll get in there and rise to whatever challenge you throw at them, irregardless of their character limitations.

Except for the occurrence of the nonlexical word "irregardless," you can't say it much better than that. :D Wow, I'm feeling snarky today. Sorry, Matt.


The problem is not that the player demands more face time or other play balance issues - it's that in one case, the player chose the way their character was built: which resulted in a support character and in the other case the player feels "forced" into a support role, which she didn't choose - simply because the other characters outshine her based (in her opinion) on random lucky rolls. That's a game balance issue right there.


I think this jibes well with Matt's comments. Good players demand (normatively, not personally) respect, and points-buy systems respect them appropriately by offering them more control over their characters. It says, "You are a good player, and you can be trusted to take the discretion I am offering you and come up with something interesting that will contribute to the game." Several other people have suggested that [I]that[I] is the true value of a points-buy system, an idea which fits nicely with the assertion that it is balance of a non-mechanical variety that matters, truly.


<snip stuff about elves and weres>... I don't know if the new editions support this or not, I presume they do.

It does not. Even if you could start with a were, it would have basically no special abilities at 1st level.

Note that DnD has been pushing their point buy statting system a lot lately, as well as allowing players to take "average" hit points every level instead of rolling. I have intel that the next edition will be even more "modern" in its mechanics.

[Curufea]

I mostly view game balance as a process rather than a place. In a campaign, there are often scenarios in which on of our PCs is almost useless in combat or serving in a support role at best.

Ideally, the GM is able to have an important role for that character in the next encounter or the one after that. Thus in the larger context of a campaign, game balance gets achieved, rather than in each individual game session or encounter.

Some players are extreemely passive and as such need to be a little more stage managed in having their characters respond while others are so aggressive as to require a seat belt for the GM and rest of the team.

Ultimately, some players are natural leaders and are going to be more decisive than others and sometime the game just plays out that way. That does not automatically constitute imbalance, IMO. Some characters and players learn to be patient while others learn to be more assertive.

While some basic guidelines still exist for PC abilities in our campaign, they are not hard caps and are arbitrated by five GMs all of who also play. So far, nobody has stepped on the role that other characters generall fill, due to cooperation and communication on the part of all players in the campaign.

Good points there - which brings up my own feelings on game balance by showing a small subset-

To paraphrase Mentor:
If you have a party of "balanced" characters in a given scenario, and each character specialises in some areas but not others (they aren't all jack-of-all-trades), then you will have some being more useful in a scenario and some will be less useful.

It comes down to the players of the useful characters to be willing to not hog the limelight during the scenario, but allow other players to get roleplaying in as well.

It's much the same with a game, or campaign in my opinion.
If you have characters of hugely different power levels in a party - you will need players with the same attitudes towards teamwork and fairplay for the other players. It is important to have non-egotist players for powerful roles. If you can't guarantee the quality of your players, then the next best thing is to force everyone to play relatively the same power level of role.