Broken and Unbalanced

[wylodmayer]

Let me throw out a position, here, for consideration and discussion. This position is not necessarily mine... but then, it's not necessarily not mine, either.

Anyway...

Proposed: All game systems are broken and unbalanced, it's just a matter of where and to what extent. The most important job of a gamemaster isn't necessarily to involve PCs in a plot, but to use their judgment to "paper over" these holes in the rules, by making new rules calls/interpretations, outright disallowing certain ostensibly "legal" moves, and/or fudging the results of certain mechanical functions to achieve a better simulation and/or narrative. Thus, a thorough understanding not only of the rules but of their weaknesses (and, by extension, of what they should be doing) is necessary to presenting a good game, since the "broken pieces" - if left unaddressed - can damage the simulation and/or narrative (as you prefer) even if the plot and presentation of the world is superb.

True? Completely false? Somewhere in between? Why or why not?

[Cancer]

I think it is obvious that this must be true, so the question becomes how bad the situation is for your game and how much you care. However, I am known to have strong Simulationist leanings, and others are likely to have differing opinions.

[Lord Fyre]

Let me throw out a position, here, for consideration and discussion. This position is not necessarily mine... but then, it's not necessarily not mine, either.

Anyway...

Proposed: All game systems are broken and unbalanced, it's just a matter of where and to what extent. The most important job of a gamemaster isn't necessarily to involve PCs in a plot, but to use their judgment to "paper over" these holes in the rules, by making new rules calls/interpretations, outright disallowing certain ostensibly "legal" moves, and/or fudging the results of certain mechanical functions to achieve a better simulation and/or narrative. Thus, a thorough understanding not only of the rules but of their weaknesses (and, by extension, of what they should be doing) is necessary to presenting a good game, since the "broken pieces" - if left unaddressed - can damage the simulation and/or narrative (as you prefer) even if the plot and presentation of the world is superb.

True? Completely false? Somewhere in between? Why or why not?

I agree with your observations, I disagree with your conclusion. Specifically "The most important job of a gamemaster isn't necessarily to involve PCs in a plot, but to use their judgment to "paper over" these holes in the rules"

Without the GM creating and bringing the players into a strong setting and plot, we might as well be playing chess. :eek:

Setting and Plot are exactly what separates an RPG from a boardgame. :)

[The Monster]

Let me throw out a position, here, for consideration and discussion. This position is not necessarily mine... but then, it's not necessarily not mine, either.

Anyway...

Proposed: All game systems are broken and unbalanced, it's just a matter of where and to what extent. The most important job of a gamemaster isn't necessarily to involve PCs in a plot, but to use their judgment to "paper over" these holes in the rules, by making new rules calls/interpretations, outright disallowing certain ostensibly "legal" moves, and/or fudging the results of certain mechanical functions to achieve a better simulation and/or narrative. Thus, a thorough understanding not only of the rules but of their weaknesses (and, by extension, of what they should be doing) is necessary to presenting a good game, since the "broken pieces" - if left unaddressed - can damage the simulation and/or narrative (as you prefer) even if the plot and presentation of the world is superb.

True? Completely false? Somewhere in between? Why or why not?

The primary job of the GM is precisely to involve the players - to get them involved, keep them involved, and empower the plot and action to progress (not that this is solely the job of the GM, by any means - the players have a lot to do with that as well!). Everything else is secondary at best: rules are a tool to employ for that purpose. I've run several sessions of various games where one or more players knew the rules better than I: the sessions went well in spite of that, mostly because the plotting and presentation was good enough, and in part because of the way I handled the differing levels of knowledge. Personally, I think that how you deal with players may be the only GM skill which really counts; at least it is the only skill which distinguishes RPGs from other games. Other skills - rules knowledge, storytelling, refereeing, etc. - are important and cannot be neglected, but the keystone of GMing is none of these.
Of course, I know my opinion doesn't mean much, so I don't expect to convince anyone.

That said, I would actually expand on, and add more emphasis on "thorough understanding of the rules." One of the really annoying things I see in discussion and gaming is GMs (and players) who look at a rule, or a small section of rules, and pronounce "this rule is broken," and then proceed to make up rules more of their liking. Now, you can certainly make rules of your own liking, but I wish people would see and admit that that is what they are doing: making rules they like, not necessarily making rules that make a "better" game. At least 90% of the time, what I see is that the rules are not in fact "broken," but that the person doesn't see how they are intended to work, and, more often than not, has not bothered to consider how the rules fit as part of a whole; and, they have almost never really considered the ramifications of their shiny new rules. People are way too eager to impose new ("house") rules, disallow legal options, and fudge mechanical functions. On the other hand, I've found that when I actually explore rules-as-written to see how they really work, I find there's a lot more sense and consistency - and often-surprising opportunities - than it seems at a cursory or incomplete consideration.

I wouldn't say all systems are broken or unbalanced: a more accurate statement would be that situations can be created or encountered with which any given system is unable to easily cope. There's a big difference. In many cases, those situations are unlikely or even almost impossible to encounter in the normal course of events, when you take into consideration settings, expectations, and precedents. (Of course, I'm talking about well-tested, well-developed rules, which most of the major ones are - Hero, GURPS, d20, what have you; with less-developed systems, there's more variability.) The issue is rarely that a game can't handle the situations, settings, and genres for which they were intended; the issue is almost always one of personal preference. One can certainly use that as a basis for adapting and changing rules; but it would be nice if people could recognize that such action is their preference, not fixing a "broken" game.

So, basically, I agree with the "thus" portion of the proposition...but the previous portion is sadly lacking.

[wylodmayer]

:thumbup:

A well stated case - I'd rep you if I could!

[input.jack]

:thumbup:

A well stated case - I'd rep you if I could!

I got him for ya.

[eternal_sage]

i also have to disagree with the basic premise. the game systems are not broken, not even d20 (my personal devil) or SR4th (as wylodmayer and i have discussed on a previous post :)). its more that each caters to a certain style of play, level of believability, and desire for certain genre "bits". thus, a game system is percieved as broken and unbalanced when it stresses these issues (and others unnamed, but of similar nature) for those involved in play.

for example, i'm a medium level verisimilitude person. i like a system to be internally consistant, and to look largely like the real world in its over all rules consideration. not "physics accurate" nor do i wish to have advanced viral infection tables that i need to roll on to determine what happens when using a restroom in Wendy's (or even rules for using the restroom, ick), but i would like fall damage that comes close to killing a normal person from a reasonable distance (for example).

thus d20 does not work for me. economics? skewed and not even close to internally consistant. HP, Saves, and Levels? what the hell? Saves complicate a simple system, levels are NOT the way that real people get better at the things they do, and HP is completely outside the realm of plausibility compared to damage ratings after 2 levels (4 for wizards). AC? what? my plate mail limits my DEX, imposes a penalty on my movement and movement based skills, and makes the miniscule arcane gestures neccessary for magic to work difficult, yet adds to MY ABILITY TO DODGE instead of reducing the overall damage of the blow (like what real armor is supposed to do, ask a policeman who's been shot in the vest). not to mention the skill system that is totally tanked after 3-5 levels, and the idea of magic and magic critters standing around looking for people to stab them, and its just not for me.

however, from another person's view, d20 is a wonderful expirience. the HP and Level system take away alot of the clutter of playing a game, and abstract a largely messy and unfortunatly complex series of real world events and possibilities into a easily understood and quantifiable system of numbers. same with BAB and AC. simplicity and abstraction, so that the game may progress with less distractions to the encounter. and so on, and so forth. the system is designed to be simple, effective, and fun, which it accomplishes easily. i, however, would prefer the complications to the lack of "realisism".

of course, this is just a single example of a single idea in a string of ideas, but they each progress in a relatively similar manner. i have, actually, attempted to house rule d20 in something more akin to my taste (this was right before i found HERO) by using the vitality / wound point system from d20 Star Wars, the armor as damage reduction system, and the classless character design (among other Unearthed Arcana bits), but it was ultimately frustrating, confusing, and fruitless (and i basically turned it into HERO lite with levels anyway).

so, no. i do not feel that "every system is unbalanced or broken" but that, in fact, every system is good in total, and it is we as GM's and players who label them unjustly because of personal bias and differing opinions to those of the creators / intended audience. sure, i think that there are some systems that cater to their audience better than others, or have wider appeal than others, etc, but they are not better systems, just better for some people.

my two coppers.

[bwdemon]

I would agree that every system has some things that are more efficient than others (unbalanced). I would also agree that most, if not all, have some mechanics that simply do not adequately represent what they are supposed to represent (broken). Some are just needlessly overcomplicated for the sake of differentiation, other needlessly overcomplicated because they overvalued that level of complication. Some are oversimplified to make them more friendly to younger buyers, some are oversimplified to make them more friendly to the lazy.

In other words, some are more unbalanced, broken, and/or complicated than others. Due to this, some game systems are just better than others, period - whether dealing with a specific genre or a range of genres. Bad systems exist and so do good systems. Both still have unbalanced mechanics and many still have broken mechanics.

The key is determining what levels of unbalanced and broken mechanics you're willing to tolerate in a game. Some unbalanced mechanics have minimal impact on the end result, making them more tolerable. Others have great impact on the game, making them a nuisance at their best and gamebreaking at their worst. As mentioned before, these can lead to disruptions in enjoyment of the game. If a broken mechanic is never used, then it isn't a big deal. If it's a core part of the game, then it makes a game unplayable.

Speaking to genre, the key to any given mechanic's cost and effect is ensuring that it does what it is supposed to do within the genre. This doesn't mean that any questionable mechanic gets a free pass as genre-specific. Some mechanics (and systems) are just bad, regardless of what genre you try to shoehorn them into.

Now, the GM should know the ups and downs of the rules and mechanics (it just makes for a better gaming experience). Players should at least know the items appropriate to their characters. Based on this knowledge, some groups may alter or disallow certain rules and mechanics in the interest of fairness, to fit their interpretation of the genre, and/or to fit their personal preferences. Anything you don't know going in can lead to problems later on, bringing the game to a grinding halt and, in some cases, inspiring the players to ditch the game altogether.

[Mojo_Bones]

While I am a big fan of "papering over" holes and fudging things, I have to strongly disagree that either of those things is the primary job of the GM. If the players are not involved than there can be no role playing. While good players can find a way to work their character into most settings, they still need a setting to work themselves into. I have been in (and unfortunately run) games where the setting was either just too weak, or changed so much from session to session that it was impossible to do any real character interaction. The games mercifully died. On the other hand, I have played in systems were a "broken rule" has come up and after discussion we figured a way around the questionable rule. The game did not end because of this. Fudging and covering are important, but not even close in importance to involving your players.

[BNakagawa]

Now I'm as big a fan of bashing d20 as the next guy, but let's get one thing straight.

He's not talking about reality simulators, he's talking about game systems.

As game systems go, D20 is pretty good. It does most of the things you really need a game system to do, and some of them quite well. Bear in mind, that due to the fact that the game is set at a human(oid) scale, people are going to naturally use their own frame of reference to judge it. This is probably the majority of the dissatisfaction with d20.

This dissatisfaction will disappear as soon as you realize that it is a good game system and a ghastly physics engine. The game is at its core the same as any video game. You kill things, take their stuff and power up to take on bigger things to take better stuff, lather, rinse, repeat. The game system doesn't support much of anything else.

Now, it's easy to discount d20 because of its limited focus, but that's like complaining that your hammer does a lousy job of driving screws. It's a powergamer's paradise and that's that. That's why D&D has been and will probably always be the sales leader. Hate it as much as you like, but making money off of powergamers is easier than making money off of role players.

After saying all of that, though, I do think that d20 is not very well balanced...

[wylodmayer]

i also have to disagree with the basic premise. the game systems are not broken, not even d20 (my personal devil) or SR4th (as wylodmayer and i have discussed on a previous post :)). its more that each caters to a certain style of play, level of believability, and desire for certain genre "bits". thus, a game system is percieved as broken and unbalanced when it stresses these issues (and others unnamed, but of similar nature) for those involved in play.


I would agree that every system has some things that are more efficient than others (unbalanced). I would also agree that most, if not all, have some mechanics that simply do not adequately represent what they are supposed to represent (broken).


Now I'm as big a fan of bashing d20 as the next guy, but let's get one thing straight. He's not talking about reality simulators, he's talking about game systems.

I quoted these three posts because they all get at something interesting in this discussion, I think. Although "broken" gets thrown around a lot by (some) gamers, and its use varies a great deal from person to person, I think most of us might agree that a "broken" rule or system is something that doesn't do what it's supposed to do. This can describe to a rule that generates non-genre appropriate results, one that generates results which seem to be inconsistent with other mechanics in the same game, or one that purports to simulate but actually doesn't.

So while sage's general point is certainly well-taken - different games appeal to different people - it's by no means apparent that no game system is therefore broken. bwdemon asserts that "most if not all" games come off the tracks at some point, and I think I agree with him. Even if we look at games as games and not necessarily reality simulators (although simulation of reality to a greater-than-usual degree may well be in the stated purposes of some games), as BNakagawa urges us to, it still seems to be the case that most have at least some mechanics, somewhere, that fail in an important way.

Palladium's Heroes Unlimited seemed to be one of these games (I can't speak for more recent editions, so I use the past tense here), at least to me. One part of the character creation chapter crows about how this won't let players start with "invincible" characters... even though several of the powers, such as Invulnerability, are wildly out of balance with the others, allowing some lucky players to do just what the rules promised wouldn't happen - start off with characters far, far more powerful than their fellows'.

As far as that definition of broken, I think some - BNakagawa, perhaps? - would argue that DnD 3.x is one of the least broken systems around. Whether you like the game itself or not, it's incredibly internally consistent, due to the unusual approach to designing the game (there's a whole theoretical structure that underpins the combat system, nature of the powers and abilities, etc).

However, several people have remarked on the importance of the GM's presentation of the setting. Which do y'all (see, English does have a distinct second-person plural) find more pressing - consistent rules or an interesting setting? Would you use a rules-set you knew to be broken (in this definition) because there was already a lot of material for a particularly attractive setting? Or would you rather use a more "solid" set of rules and do the work fleshing out the setting (which might include statting out all sorts of stuff) yourself?

[The Monster]

However, several people have remarked on the importance of the GM's presentation of the setting. Which do y'all (see, English does have a distinct second-person plural) find more pressing - consistent rules or an interesting setting? Would you use a rules-set you knew to be broken (in this definition) because there was already a lot of material for a particularly attractive setting? Or would you rather use a more "solid" set of rules and do the work fleshing out the setting (which might include statting out all sorts of stuff) yourself?

I've just come to really dislike the word "broken" - it's too easy to throw the label, and it's usually thrown by people who haven't bothered to really dig into a given system to see what it can do within its own structure. Most (not all, of course!) "house rules" I see proposed don't so much improve the game as impose that individual's prejudice/whim on an otherwise workable rule-set. But enough quibbling about language.

As may be apparent from my post, I really prefer to give a published rules set a fighting chance - a careful reading of the whole system, or ven a few sessions of play, before dismissing it. Sometimes things work better than I though upon a quick read, sometimes not; but even in the cases where I don't like the rules, I can often find things worth gleaning. In general, however, I prefer to use rules I already know and trust (i.e., Hero). There's many a time when I am playing, GMing, or even just reading rules when I think, "how would this work in Hero?" (often followed by "gee, Hero could do this better!"). Part of that is the strengths of the system, and part of that is simply that I've played Hero enough that I know how it works.

But there's the issue of time and energy. I'm pretty dang lazy, and if there's a tolerable system with published material, I'm likely to settle for it (d20 Star Wars, for example). For my Serenity campaign, I decided to try out the published system - and it's working OK, but I'm sure not enamored of that system (in part because I haven't really worked with it enough); were I to do it over, I'd probably use Hero (or maybe even Savage Worlds).

So, to actually address the question, I'd rather use a system I know, even if I have to adapt and stat stuff out myself. I think in large part that's so the rules don't get in the way by having to look stuff up all the time. But I don't always have the time and energy I'd like to do the work.

[Mojo_Bones]

That pretty much is where I am as well. I would love to run everything in one of the systems I feel comfortable with, for many reasons. Comfort is a big one, not liking to look foolish would be another, and ability to adapt things on the fly is also something I feel can be very important when running.
But I am also very very lazy. If there is a general setting I like, that is no problem to move over to another system. However if there is a setting with a lot of in depth material (important NPC's, items, etc) that I would have to rewrite to transfer systems, I am more likely to stay with the original system. Sometimes I may stay with it if it just has the right "feel" for the setting.
And I too don't like the term "broken". I have run into rules that are confusing, poorly written, or did not seem to make sense to me, but I did not think them broken. I think often it is more the case of priority differences in what people want from the system ( I know someone already said that and I agree). While I do use some house rules, that is more for flavor than to change a "broken rule". Most of those changes tend to be very minor.

[eternal_sage]

well, you have to forgive me. i have a tendency to over generalize for no apparent reason. what i should have said was "no system that i have played/GMed" not all systems. i should also point out that i have a tendency to play devil's advocate. yea, i hate d20, and the whole thing is broken in my opinion, but its just my opinion, so i try not to rate it highly enough so that it becomes "natural law."

even though it obviously should be! :)

i mean, i am the most important person here, right?? :rolleyes:

[TheRealVector]

Now I'm as big a fan of bashing d20 as the next guy, but...

I'm the next guy and no you're not. :p

But you're still repped!:thumbup:

[wylodmayer]

:D You may well be, sage!

Okay, well, it sounds like the label of "broken" should go by the wayside, at least for the time being. Monster and Mojo both seem pretty forgiving of even those systems which seem to have serious structural difficulties, and, indeed, it may well just be a matter of not having worked with the systems enough to get the hang of what they were driving at.

Personally, I'm not quite so optimistic - I've met a lot of game designers, and many of them, it seems to me, get an idea for a mechanic in their heads and then flesh it out some without ever really sitting down to test it, without working from some kind of theoretical base... and that, to me, is bound to lead to inconsistencies and unexpected results. Certainly, there are games that purport to be "realistic" but nonetheless a combat engine that gives highly unrealistic results, or even games that have rules which are inconsistent with one another. Although we've laid aside the term "broken," I think these games have serious issues, and certainly I don't see how matters could be improved by just having more patience.

Then again, that doesn't mean I won't continue using such a game, as Mojo mentioned. A perfect example of this is Decipher's Star Trek engine. The game is a mess. Some of the "class abilities" (Professional Abilities in the game, but they are basically class features) are, well, the ONLY good term for them is "broken." Some are literally useless (that is, characters already have access to those abilities for lower cost elsewhere) and some are written in such a way as to give the impression that the game designer was not familiar with his own mechanics - did he write them before fleshing out the rules on that issue, intending to structure things one way only to forget and do it another? The mechanics are quirky, they flat out don't work. And there are mechanical inconsistencies between the Player's and the Narrator's books, including such basic stuff as how to roll skill successes. What does one do when confronted with a system like that?

I actually still run it. There's a few useful things already detailed in game terms, I like the way they handle ship combat, and I like the basic theory behind the skill system. I've had to apply a TON of "band-aids" to the rules, but I stuck with it.

On the other hand, I've also done what Mojo mentioned, which is to port a setting to what I think are better rules - such as moving my Marvel game to HERO. I haven't yet decided when I choose one over the other.

[bwdemon]

The question of setting vs. system reminds me about the old saying of sewage and wine. If you start with a barrel of sewage and add a tablespoon of wine, the whole thing is still sewage. If you start with a barrel of wine and add a tablespoon of sewage, the whole thing is now sewage. The barrel is the system and the tablespoon is the setting. What makes a system into sewage? Broken mechanics, imbalances, and needless overcomplication.

I consider very few game systems to be balanced and quite a few to be broken (there are significantly more broken game systems than unbroken game systems). I have experience with scores of tabletop RPG systems (and more outside of tabletop) throughout my time in gaming, so it isn't like I'm a two-game wonder proselytizing for my chosen favorite.

A common theme (not an absolute rule, but very common) in gaming is that people who are good with settings are not good with rules and vice versa. If the ego creeps out and someone decides that they're good at something they have no business handling, very few game companies have the personnel in place to catch it or correct it. So you might get an amazing setting with terrible rules or a terrible setting with amazing rules.

Is it possible to have fun playing a game with a terrible system so long as the setting is good? For some people, sure, but not for me. I can and will throw my gaming dollars elsewhere. Is it possible to have fun playing a game with a great system and a terrible setting? That answer depends heavily on the players' expectations. I've played games with no setting at all and had fun (e.g. combats without any story at all), which I guess would be like not adding a tablespoon at all, but I have to like the system.

[Mojo_Bones]

Sorry, I can not agree with you on this. I as well am not a one or two system player. ( I doubt I could even name all of the systems I have at least played once.) While most systems have problems, I find most that make it to a 2nd or 3rd edition are cleaned up enough to be playable. And while I completely agree that some systems are a lot "smoother" than others, I have no problem playing in the other systems. Setting and characters (or more precisely GM and players) make the system either bearable or unbearable. Back in the heyday of D&D, I played with 4 or 5 different groups in my area. Some were so bad I played once and never returned. Others I played with for 3 years or more. Is D&D ( old D&D, that is) a great system? I don't think so, especially when they started adding things like skills that just made the system a mess. But the better group I was a part of managed to make do with the mess and continue to enjoy the setting built by our GM. This is not to say there are systems I really don't like, but many times that is just as much setting as rules. Or rules that are just "clunky" to me, but I would not say they were broken.

[The Monster]

It's very interesting sometimes to see what people consider broken or unbalanced. Add my name to the list of people who have played more RPGs than they can count: last year, I tried - and IIRC I've GMed over a dozen, and played in over twenty. Other than the few games which were just plain awful, I've been able to work with most rules. Funny thing, though, is that some systems people swear by (White Wolf and Fudge come to mind) leave me pretty cold. Are they broken? Maybe - though in the case of Fudge, my feeling is that there ain't enough substance there to break, let alone stand up; it feels to me that it's just a step away from making the whole thing up as you go along. But that's my opinion, and I can say I haven't really given it a fair shake. (I don't think I'm not so much "forgiving" of rules sets - there's several I've tried and discarded - as I reserve judgement longer than most.)

To me, a big part of it is that I don't think I (or most anyone else) will ever find the perfect system; in that much, the original thesis was correct. Every system breaks at some point, and the ability to overlook or tolerate those breaking points vary greatly from person to person. The goal is to find the optimal rules, with or without house rules, for the given situation, for the given group of people.

And, referring to the original post, I do think that as far as dealing with rules, it is a very important part of the GM's job to selectively enforce, modify and interpret the rules on an ongoing basis. Properly done, neither the plot nor the rules should step on each other - ideally, it should even go beyond that: the rules and the plot should reinforce each other. The synergy ain't easy, but it ought to be the goal of every GM.

[eternal_sage]

i admit to being a 5 (maybe as many as seven, sometimes i can't remember what i've actually tried or just read alot about) system person, and those are all tried and true type things (DnD, SR, WoD, HERO, GURPS... nope, i guess it is 5 :) ) so my experience is nothing related to all encompassing, i just think that, given these games at least, nothing is to terrible, just a matter of focus and juggling. then again, these are the top level games, the ones that, together, probably have a 95% market share (i known WoTC and WW together are around 80% of the market). the lesser games (in stature and prestige, not in quality, by definition) may have alot of these issues, and i just don't know. it makes sense what Mojo_Bones said about games that get to 2nd or 3rd editions, though. if its popular enough to be revised, then it has to be doing something right for someone. if not, then obviously no one is really happy with it.

and i must say that the new World of Darkness (hereafter refered to as nWoD) is MUCH better than oWoD. the old settings were ok, but the old system left alot to be desired. nWoD, on the other hand is, in my opinion, the perfect balance of style, substance, and story. they really sat down and figured out exactly what they wanted to accomplish, tailored the rules to that end, and did a fantastic job of making it all seemless. IMHO nWoD is a terrific system because it has a very consistent, concise, and dare i say elegant rules system, and a group of the best writers to grace the pages of any RPG as far as setting (and their new adventures line is also top notch). then again, its my second favorite system (after HERO, obviously, or i'd be on their boards with the rest of the whinny emo children), so i may not be a source of unbiased information.

also, i will add that the nWoD system is TERRIBLE for combat, might i add, because it is way to variable (dice pool systems seem to do that) so that any individual attack could just destory the other party. we have house ruled combat into two actions (attack roll and damage roll) which has helped some, but it still can get frustrating when your werewolf can't do anything, and some hobo is beating the shit out of every baddie that strolls up, just because of the funky pool mechanics (SR has the same problem, alot of the time). then again, combat is the last thing you should try in nWoD, as it is not set up to be a 6 hour melee, and to that degree, it actually still succeeds its design purpose while still failing to work in a satifying way.

[starblaze]

i also have to disagree with the basic premise. the game systems are not broken, not even d20 (my personal devil) or SR4th (as wylodmayer and i have discussed on a previous post :)). its more that each caters to a certain style of play, level of believability, and desire for certain genre "bits". thus, a game system is percieved as broken and unbalanced when it stresses these issues (and others unnamed, but of similar nature) for those involved in play.

for example, i'm a medium level verisimilitude person. i like a system to be internally consistant, and to look largely like the real world in its over all rules consideration. not "physics accurate" nor do i wish to have advanced viral infection tables that i need to roll on to determine what happens when using a restroom in Wendy's (or even rules for using the restroom, ick), but i would like fall damage that comes close to killing a normal person from a reasonable distance (for example).

thus d20 does not work for me. economics? skewed and not even close to internally consistant. HP, Saves, and Levels? what the hell? Saves complicate a simple system, levels are NOT the way that real people get better at the things they do, and HP is completely outside the realm of plausibility compared to damage ratings after 2 levels (4 for wizards). AC? what? my plate mail limits my DEX, imposes a penalty on my movement and movement based skills, and makes the miniscule arcane gestures neccessary for magic to work difficult, yet adds to MY ABILITY TO DODGE instead of reducing the overall damage of the blow (like what real armor is supposed to do, ask a policeman who's been shot in the vest). not to mention the skill system that is totally tanked after 3-5 levels, and the idea of magic and magic critters standing around looking for people to stab them, and its just not for me.

however, from another person's view, d20 is a wonderful expirience. the HP and Level system take away alot of the clutter of playing a game, and abstract a largely messy and unfortunatly complex series of real world events and possibilities into a easily understood and quantifiable system of numbers. same with BAB and AC. simplicity and abstraction, so that the game may progress with less distractions to the encounter. and so on, and so forth. the system is designed to be simple, effective, and fun, which it accomplishes easily. i, however, would prefer the complications to the lack of "realisism".

of course, this is just a single example of a single idea in a string of ideas, but they each progress in a relatively similar manner. i have, actually, attempted to house rule d20 in something more akin to my taste (this was right before i found HERO) by using the vitality / wound point system from d20 Star Wars, the armor as damage reduction system, and the classless character design (among other Unearthed Arcana bits), but it was ultimately frustrating, confusing, and fruitless (and i basically turned it into HERO lite with levels anyway).

so, no. i do not feel that "every system is unbalanced or broken" but that, in fact, every system is good in total, and it is we as GM's and players who label them unjustly because of personal bias and differing opinions to those of the creators / intended audience. sure, i think that there are some systems that cater to their audience better than others, or have wider appeal than others, etc, but they are not better systems, just better for some people.

my two coppers.

Not to get too off topic, but I have found that Conan the RPG does help with some of these problems. It uses a Dodge and Parry bonus instead of A.C. and armor protect you from damage than to avoid getting hit.

[David Blue]

Let me throw out a position, here, for consideration and discussion. This position is not necessarily mine... but then, it's not necessarily not mine, either.

Anyway...

Proposed: All game systems are broken and unbalanced, it's just a matter of where and to what extent. The most important job of a gamemaster isn't necessarily to involve PCs in a plot, but to use their judgment to "paper over" these holes in the rules, by making new rules calls/interpretations, outright disallowing certain ostensibly "legal" moves, and/or fudging the results of certain mechanical functions to achieve a better simulation and/or narrative. Thus, a thorough understanding not only of the rules but of their weaknesses (and, by extension, of what they should be doing) is necessary to presenting a good game, since the "broken pieces" - if left unaddressed - can damage the simulation and/or narrative (as you prefer) even if the plot and presentation of the world is superb.

True? Completely false? Somewhere in between? Why or why not?I think you left something out, and that's fixability.

There's a big difference between a game that has fairly simply and modular rules, so that when something is going wrong I can easily see what it is and swap in a rule that works for my players to replace one that doesn't, and a game that's providing a sucky experience for my players, and assuming I can even see why through all the rule foliage I'd have to rewrite books of cross-referenced combat tables to fix it.

If a roleplaying game is sufficiently unpleasant to play that my addicted gamers who like that genre would rather watch weekend television than play it, and if fixability is so low that, practically, the best solution would be to buy a different game, then for me, functionally, that game is broken.

[BoneDaddy]

The whole field of physics is still broken and unbalanced, we can't expect a whole lot from DOJ, WoTC, etc. I'm not much of a simulationist, although I do have my limits. If the rules get in the way of telling a good story and having a good time with my friends, the rules have to go.

Examples:
1. AD&D: Hit points. They just don't work very well. An eighth level warrior can get shot with more arrows than St. Anthony and keep on going. By level twelve, they can fight one disguised as a pincushion. It makes combat rather tedious, especially in a combat system so ... crappy. A fourth level wizard, on the other hand, can actually fall off a curb and die instantly on the cobblestone streets of Waterdeep. Mean streets, indeed.

2. Shadowrun & Shadowrun 2d edition: The matrix. Buttloads of d6, I mean actual, painful buttloads of d6, and your decker that you've spend a million nuyen outfitting with the best damn deck money can buy can't force a coffee maker to brew a decent cup. A house rule with my old shadowrun group was this: All deckers are NPCs. We eliminated the class entirely, and fun was thus preserved.

[David Blue]

2. Shadowrun & Shadowrun 2d edition: The matrix. Buttloads of d6, I mean actual, painful buttloads of d6, and your decker that you've spend a million nuyen outfitting with the best damn deck money can buy can't force a coffee maker to brew a decent cup. A house rule with my old shadowrun group was this: All deckers are NPCs. We eliminated the class entirely, and fun was thus preserved.
That's a good example of what I consider "broken".

[Diamond Spear]

The question of setting vs. system reminds me about the old saying of sewage and wine. If you start with a barrel of sewage and add a tablespoon of wine, the whole thing is still sewage. If you start with a barrel of wine and add a tablespoon of sewage, the whole thing is now sewage. The barrel is the system and the tablespoon is the setting. What makes a system into sewage? Broken mechanics, imbalances, and needless overcomplication.

I consider very few game systems to be balanced and quite a few to be broken (there are significantly more broken game systems than unbroken game systems). I have experience with scores of tabletop RPG systems (and more outside of tabletop) throughout my time in gaming, so it isn't like I'm a two-game wonder proselytizing for my chosen favorite.

A common theme (not an absolute rule, but very common) in gaming is that people who are good with settings are not good with rules and vice versa. If the ego creeps out and someone decides that they're good at something they have no business handling, very few game companies have the personnel in place to catch it or correct it. So you might get an amazing setting with terrible rules or a terrible setting with amazing rules.

Is it possible to have fun playing a game with a terrible system so long as the setting is good? For some people, sure, but not for me. I can and will throw my gaming dollars elsewhere. Is it possible to have fun playing a game with a great system and a terrible setting? That answer depends heavily on the players' expectations. I've played games with no setting at all and had fun (e.g. combats without any story at all), which I guess would be like not adding a tablespoon at all, but I have to like the system.

You've played one or more Palladium games haven't you? ;)

[eternal_sage]

the decker thing was helped a bit in 4th, as it is not nearly as hard to get a disired effect (plus they are mobile and wireless, so they can 'run as well), but even in the newest version, i feel many of the systems are uneccessarily complex. but they are, at least in my opinion, better. personally, our house rule is to trim down the skill trees and make most things simple skill vs skill things, as opposed to "cyber combat" which is silly if you know anything about computers to begin with. i do the same with magic.

[Comic]

It's far more likely that all players -- and especially all GMs -- are broken and unbalanced, and it's up to everyone playing to remember they're there for a good time.

For a good exploration of how to treat the rules of game systems, consider the Pirates trilogy, and picture Keith Richards, heavily armed, plastered, and in full make-up, sitting behind the GM.. ;)

[Mike W]

I don't think it is necessarily the case in several respects.

First, I think that to say all games systems are "unbalanced" is a bit harsh and unrealistic. All game systems have things they do better or worse than other systems. So the first thing to do is ask yourself what you want out of the system. I still think 2nd edition D&D does a fine job replicating high fantasy. I wouldn't want to run a "realistic" game on that system though. Also, I think that you will never get a perfect game system because inevitably people think differently and will want different things or interpret things differently. We cannot, for instance, all agree on how to do certain things in HERO. Sometimes, it's debatable whether it is even LEGAL. Perception DOES matter. Furthermore, you have imperfect people creating the systems, so mistakes will be made. You therefore have to allow that a certain amount of imperfections will always exist in any system. However, that doesn't mean that they are on the whole unbalanced or broken in any way.

Second, I don't think that the PRIMARY job of the game master is to "fix the system". It's important. But the primary job involves telling stories that everyone wants to be a part of. If the story sucks, no amount of dice rolling or mechanics will likely save the campaign for long.

[input.jack]

I don't think that the PRIMARY job of the game master is to "fix the system". It's important. But the primary job involves telling stories that everyone wants to be a part of. If the story sucks, no amount of dice rolling or mechanics will likely save the campaign for long.

QUoted for Truth. And conversely, a fantastic story can make a game great, even if its run on shaky mechanics (to a point).

[Vondy]

GM: host, storyteller, supporting cast, world-builder, arbiter of mechanics. In that order, with the last meaning: rules guy.

[zornwil]

I agree with your observations, I disagree with your conclusion. Specifically "The most important job of a gamemaster isn't necessarily to involve PCs in a plot, but to use their judgment to "paper over" these holes in the rules"

Without the GM creating and bringing the players into a strong setting and plot, we might as well be playing chess. :eek:

Setting and Plot are exactly what separates an RPG from a boardgame. :)
I'm picking a nit here, but it's not necessarily the GM's job, either. In a game like Best Friends, it's a group exercise. And I believe in any game, if the GM is the sole arbiter of standards, it's a long-term recipe for failure as players' voices are not heard. The reason I pick this nit is just to remind us all that running the game isn't and shouldn't be about singling out the GM in doing so. We all play a part.

[zornwil]

The whole field of physics is still broken and unbalanced, we can't expect a whole lot from DOJ, WoTC, etc. I'm not much of a simulationist, although I do have my limits. If the rules get in the way of telling a good story and having a good time with my friends, the rules have to go.

Examples:
1. AD&D: Hit points. They just don't work very well. An eighth level warrior can get shot with more arrows than St. Anthony and keep on going. By level twelve, they can fight one disguised as a pincushion. It makes combat rather tedious, especially in a combat system so ... crappy. A fourth level wizard, on the other hand, can actually fall off a curb and die instantly on the cobblestone streets of Waterdeep. Mean streets, indeed.

2. Shadowrun & Shadowrun 2d edition: The matrix. Buttloads of d6, I mean actual, painful buttloads of d6, and your decker that you've spend a million nuyen outfitting with the best damn deck money can buy can't force a coffee maker to brew a decent cup. A house rule with my old shadowrun group was this: All deckers are NPCs. We eliminated the class entirely, and fun was thus preserved.
First, as I said in my rep, great point.

But I think many, many games have that Hit Points mistake, and partly by a compromise between design and that we have all these tactical or semi-tactical systems that are uncomfortably wedded to the normal RPG mentality that the more we play a PC the less we want that PC to die. HERO is sort of similar, it isn't at all hard to build up your PC to ensure that he rarely take BODY in most (not all) campaigns. Of course, in HERO, balance is differently implemented, so one has to sacrifice other things (in theory, anyway, and let's leave it at that) in order to assure that a million arrows never kill their character, and may have to invest ongoing in order to do so. And I did say "most" and perhaps that's unfair, as that's my observation from reading and hearing things, but in any case I am not saying that there aren't campaigns this is curtailed in - but I argue it's curtailed by group consensus and use of the rules more than a strict reading of the rules (especially given HERO's toolkit/options nature).

All that said, my over-generalization is that "Balance is an illusion." Unless you're just flipping coins or something, an RPG combines too much nuance with interpretation and individual player ability (in rules lawyering and in narration strength, just to name a couple) to truly create balance. Although if we define balance as "if all players play exactly the same," perhaps it exists, but that just doesn't happen in the real world.

But what do we really want out of balance? I would argue we want players to feel they are contributing equally to the extent they prefer (those 2 together being important) via their PCs to moving the game/story/verisimillitude/what-have-you forward, and we want players and GM to have an equal amount of fun. This is a huge order, since we cannot measure "fun," we can only measure the quantifiable effects of winning and losing conflicts and how the currency of a game gets used and distributed. System does matter here, as it defines the very currency, and currency is necessarily a player focus since it is what allows impact on the game. A truly honest system indicates where the GM and players have a responsibility of their own to work with the system to balance things, is explicit and instructional in this regard. There will always be a responsibility of the players (including GM) to keep things balanced, especially given the "fun" angle and sometimes that won't be possible because people have expectations that cannot be reconciled in balance but seem they should be. So, yes, to the original post, there's a necessary responsibility to players and GM that cannot be completely abdicated to system, at least with only the rarest of exceptions IMHO, but, no, that's not outside the system, ideally, that's admitted to and defined by the system. Most good systems attempt to do this, and we measure them on how well they hit that mark. Much of the arguments around HERO in regard to balance has a lot to do with how different people view the advice and direction given in the text on these matters, not strictly on the numbers on points and that's an appropriate place/way to focus on.

[input.jack]

First, as I said in my rep, great point.
.....

Very well said, and repped :)

[zornwil]

Thanks.

[TheQuestionMan]

The GM is the Ultimate Arbiter of the Rules and falls within their sphere to control Broken and Unbalanced Mechanics.

IMOHO

QM

[ghost-angel]

RE: The OP....

Given that no two people will interpret a large body of text in total (i.e. a Game Book) exactly the same the defacto conclusion is not that a system is inherently broken or unbroken but inherently not perfectly universal in application.

RE: The GM

The GMs job is to facilitate the continuation of the story and arbitrate flow. Whatever is needed to do that is done. Be it rules (re)interpretation or story boarding.