A Modest Proposal: an approach to character balancing

[Ki-rin]

We all know the standard old guidelines:
A) Average Defence should be 2x the average attack, with a maxmium of 2.5x the average attack.
B) PC SPDs should be within 4 points of each other (3-6. 4-7, 5-8, etc)
C) CVs should be within 5 points of each other (5-9, 6-10, and 7-11 are typical)
D) The "average" Champions game has
a 11d6 main attack,
avg ED or PD of 25,
avg Dex of 23 (AKA "The Goodman Nunber"),
and an avg SPD of 5.5.

This always felt like it led to some artificial feeling GM and/or play restrictions as well as making it very difficult to create certain in-genre characters. After all, a "Speedster" 's primary characteristic should be, errr, _speed_. The Flash's or even Qucksilver's SPD isn't just 6, 7, or 8 (using the limits from above). It's either 12 or very close to it...

So I started experimenting with "damage per unit time" as a way of balancing PC vs each other and their opponents.

(Hit%)*(Damage per Hit)*(number of possible hits per turn)= Expected Damage per Turn

If we use the old "the standard Champions game has" numbers, we get
(135/216)*(11 - 25, 38.5 - 25, 66 -25)*(5.5)=
(135/216)*(0, 13.5, 41)*(5.5)=
(0, 46 13/32, 140 15/16) respectivly for min, avg, and max expected damage per turn.

From some POV all characters that do this amount of expected damage per turn are equivalent offensively in combat. Those who do more than this are more effective, those who do less are less effective.

As long as characters "solve" this equation equivalently or close to equivalently, now we can allow a larger variation in character concepts without breaking game balance.

This allowed me to allow the SPD 12 character as well as others that in the past I could not.

[Trebuchet]

In our campaign we use a similar, albeit simpler, formula as a guideline:

• SPD + DC <= 20

With the "threshold" nature of Hero system damage it seems to work out reasonably well to keep the PCs roughly comparable in combat effectiveness. Our SPDs range from 4 to 9 and DEX from 20 to 43. Damage ranges from 10d6 to 15d6.

[tesuji]

As long as characters "solve" this equation equivalently or close to equivalently, now we can allow a larger variation in character concepts without breaking game balance.

Well, first off, damage done is but one part of balance.

Second, your formula only produces numbers that are valid as long as you keep your foes built to spec and can rapidly gang aglay with even small variations.

Figure this...

compare your speed 8 guy vs your speed 4 guy with same chance to hit.

then throw them at a DEF 30 or DEF 35 guy instead of a def 25 guy?

its very likely the speed 4 guy is still viable, just doing a little less damage.
Its also likely the speed 8 guy is now doing next to no damage if any.

their "combat balance" no longer exists just a few points off spec for the villain.

So, the point is, your balance in play will come much, much more from the challenges you script for them and from your CHOOSING challenges with "what will this cause balance to be today" in mind than it will from any formula approach.

So, why not say "no" to "all the PCs must be built to a single formula" and say "yes!" to "build what you want within reason given the setting i define and i will use the challenges to provide "balance""?

Just a thought.

other than that, "your formula is way cool, and will be neato-spiffy and will probably provide strikingly good balance when run properly"... just like every other formula did for those others and so forth.

[Ki-rin]

One of the big things I was trying to capture with my formula (and did) was the actual combat effect of having a greater or lesser CV than "average" since that had been a cause of game balance problems in the past.

The number crunching becomes much easier with practice.

[Ki-rin]

Well, first off, damage done is but one part of balance.

Of course. I even said so However, a similar formula can be used to evaluate _defensive_ capabilities of a character as well. Therefore we can at least make sure all characters are "combat balanced". This helps keep The Rules Rapist (tm), The Mad Slasher (tm), and The Combat Monster (tm) in check enough that everyone else gets to have fun as well.

Second, your formula only produces numbers that are valid as long as you keep your foes built to spec and can rapidly gang aglay with even small variations.

Figure this...

compare your speed 8 guy vs your speed 4 guy with same chance to hit.

If SPD 8 Guy and SPD 4 Guy have the same chance to hit, then SPD 4 Guy very likely does much more damage per hit. Remember, the CV of the character figures into this as well.

then throw them at a DEF 30 or DEF 35 guy instead of a def 25 guy?

its very likely the speed 4 guy is still viable, just doing a little less damage.
Its also likely the speed 8 guy is now doing next to no damage if any.

their "combat balance" no longer exists just a few points off spec for the villain.

Ever watch Quicksilver or Flash try and take on a Brick? After making this change, our combats looked _far_ more like these under such circumstances.
In short, it worked at making our game more genre-true while keeping play balance across a wider range of character concepts.

So, the point is, your balance in play will come much, much more from the challenges you script for them and from your CHOOSING challenges with "what will this cause balance to be today" in mind than it will from any formula approach.

Of Course. OTOH, that doesn't help the problem this was meant to help solve: widening the variation of acceptably balanced characters I could allow in game.

So, why not say "no" to "all the PCs must be built to a single formula" and say "yes!" to "build what you want within reason given the setting i define and i will use the challenges to provide "balance""?

You say "P-ah-tato", I say "P-oh-tato". I'm in no way advocating "all the PCs must be built to a single formula". I'm merely pointing out a way we could make a wider range of characters <b>combat</b> balanced. As you rightly point out, there is far more to RPGs than combat.

[tesuji]

[/QUOTE]

Therefore we can at least make sure all characters are "combat balanced".

noticeably disparate characters being combat balanced will not result from a forrmula. it will result from careful and well considered choice of adversaries and scenarios by the GM, whether a formula for chargen was used or not.

If SPD 8 Guy and SPD 4 Guy have the same chance to hit, then SPD 4 Guy very likely does much more damage per hit. Remember, the CV of the character figures into this as well.

yeah, i got that, hence the entire point of my example. As the defenses of the adversariesvary from the one set avg the formula was predicated upon, this "combat balance" goes right out the window.

Ever watch Quicksilver or Flash try and take on a Brick? After making this change, our combats looked _far_ more like these under such circumstances.
In short, it worked at making our game more genre-true while keeping play balance across a wider range of character concepts.

So, what are you saying here. At the same time your combats against bricks were more balanced and more genre true?

Seems to me the combat against bricks would be less balanced as the speedster does next to nothing and no longer averages the same damage per time you sought to balance.

Of Course. OTOH, that doesn't help the problem this was meant to help solve: widening the variation of acceptably balanced characters I could allow in game.

uhhh... it doesn't?

If i plan to balance characters by well chosen adversaries and chalenges designed to provide equal "use" for the PCs, then it seems like i got a wide range of acceptable PCs. I don't have to say "no" to a PC who fails to meet a given single formula. i can say "yes" as long as i see other things which i can use in play to get balance in.

Relying on "this one formula" as you balance-o-meter is IMO & IMX a lot more limiting than realizing scenario will be your single biggest balance-o-meter. Rule of X type formulas have been tried many times and in my experience, dont do all that well.

I'm in no way advocating "all the PCs must be built to a single formula".

if you provide one formula and say "fit this formula" then PCs will be built to fit that one formula, right?

or

are you suggesting this formula be optional, they can use it if they wish or simply disregard it if it suits them and it wont affect their acceptance in the game?

[Ki-rin]

As you say, there is NO substitute for a good GM making the right decisions. Nor can any one formula (Except perhaps the Master Game Balance Equation of +5 AP= +(1d6)= +1 Body= 2x the effect on the same amount of mass= the same effect on 2x the mass) assure overall game balance. As you imply even equivalent characters can be more or less effective in a given situation depending on how closely they and the situation are suited to each other (The Torch is NOT happy on the Elemental Plane of Water, but Water Elemental Lad...).

However, <b>combat</b> balance is usually the place where The Pain exists. All the artificial heuristics, GM planning, GM "tweaks", etc regarding keeping characters and situations <b>combat</b> balanced pretty much bear this out.

The goal here was to present a more effective methodology for keeping characters combat balanced than some might have seen before, and one that would require less artificial heuristics, GM interference, etc. An objective standard that players know is as objective (and therefore fair) as the GM can make it. This beats the heck out of "case-by-case" subjective decision making on the part of the GM since there's _always_ the chance under such circumstances that _this_ time you've made a mistake.

In the Brick vs Speedster example, the SPD 4 Brick gets his combat effectiveness from rolling lot's of damage dice. The Speedster get his combat effectiveness from being able to do far more per turn and from making his smaller number of damage dice more effective (higher CV, higher STUN multiples, Armor Piercing, Penetrating, etc). The Brick swats you once and you _feel_ it. The Speedster out-manuvers you and Pennies and Nickels you to death.

Are there opponents better suited to one vs the other? Of course. But both are balanced with respect to each other, which was the goal, and I can allow a wider range of character conceptions on the same team than using "standard heuristics" =knowing= that. When is the last time you saw a PC balanced superteam that had each of a SPD 3, a SPD 6, and a SPD 12 character on it? Particularly where all the players and the GM were happy?

And <b>that's</b> the point.

[Trebuchet]

When is the last time you saw a PC balanced superteam that had each of a SPD 3, a SPD 6, and a SPD 12 character on it? Particularly where all the players and the GM were happy?

Well, our team has two SPD 4; three SPD 5; a SPD 6; and a SPD 9, and we're all pretty happy.

[BNakagawa]

I like this system as it actually measures meaningful things.

I also like flipping the equation on its head and calculating how many attacks from a generic opponent the character can be expected to survive.

The largest blind spot in this equation is that it is very effective to build a character that can generate an enormous amount of damage with a low hit frquency. Although such a character will not generate a lot of damage wrt the hit %* damage inflicted * SPD equation (thanks to the low hit %), there are numerous methods of denying a target some or all of their DCV, so either using something to augment their own hit % (darkness field, entangle damage field, etc) or with the aid of a teammate (martial throw, flash etc) such a character can be a game breaker.

[Trebuchet]

I like this system as it actually measures meaningful things.

I also like flipping the equation on its head and calculating how many attacks from a generic opponent the character can be expected to survive.

The largest blind spot in this equation is that it is very effective to build a character that can generate an enormous amount of damage with a low hit frquency. Although such a character will not generate a lot of damage wrt the hit %* damage inflicted * SPD equation (thanks to the low hit %), there are numerous methods of denying a target some or all of their DCV, so either using something to augment their own hit % (darkness field, entangle damage field, etc) or with the aid of a teammate (martial throw, flash etc) such a character can be a game breaker.

That's where all such formulas ultimately break down. Unless all combats are one on one arena battles, there is no rational (or possible) way to factor in things like teammates' actions and the effect environment and sfx have on a combat. My low damage character Zl'f once spent almost an entire combat Legsweeping a supertough villain so our slower "heavies" could hammer the bad guy while he was prone and hence at half DCV. On paper with this formula (or any other I've ever seen in 23 years of Champions) my character was utterly incapable of beating that villain because she couldn't hit hard enough to get through his defenses. As it was she was absolutely critical to our team's victory over that particular foe.

[tesuji]

[/QUOTE]

The goal here was to present a more effective methodology for keeping characters combat balanced than some might have seen before, and one that would require less artificial heuristics, GM interference, etc. An objective standard that players know is as objective (and therefore fair) as the GM can make it. This beats the heck out of "case-by-case" subjective decision making on the part of the GM since there's _always_ the chance under such circumstances that _this_ time you've made a mistake.

Thats where your error creeps in.

ONJECTIVE does not = fair and objective certainly does not equal balance.

Moreover, its not an objective standard at all.

Why?

Each character's performance by the formula is a given value.

Each character's performance during play is determined by the myriad SUBJECTIVE decisions you make as Gm when you setup the scenarios and challenges. Those subjective decisions will make or break the balance more than your formula will.

So the issue is, once you start believing that you have objectively balanced characters cuz you got the magic formula, you have shifted the "what i need to do for balanced play" focus away from where it really counts (the challenges you present) and to something which really only has meaning in a very narrow set (the magic formula of formulas.)

Are there opponents better suited to one vs the other? Of course. But both are balanced with respect to each other,

What does this mean? Seriously?

Does it mean "on paper, without any actual play involved, these character will be "balanced"?

if your goal is to create "on paper but not in actual play" balance, then you may have that, but whats that worth.

"in play balance" is a lot more important, and that doesn't come as a result of you limiting acceptable characters due to a single formula all must be built to conform to.

which was the goal, and I can allow a wider range of character conceptions on the same team than using "standard heuristics" =knowing= that. When is the last time you saw a PC balanced superteam that had each of a SPD 3, a SPD 6, and a SPD 12 character on it? Particularly where all the players and the GM were happy?

And <b>that's</b> the point.

hqaving never seen a team with a speed 12 guy at all, i have nothing to go on for your question.

but i know i have seen multiple games, and even ran a few, with some characters who did not meet that formula or even be close where everyone was happy and having fun.

I also know i have seen games where "on paper" everyone thought the characters were balanced just fine but in play this proved to be grossly wrong.

Look, i can see where, for you, moving from whatever old limitation for combat balance on paper you were using to this new combat balance on paper formula you want to use may well be "increasing your options" and thats all well and fine. You used to keep yourself in a smaller box and now you have created for yourself a bigger box than before. great!

All i am saying is neither box was responsible for balance in play actually happening in game and one could drop the not-quite-as-small-a-box-as-i-had-before formula and go much wider if one spends their focus and energy and put their reliance not on a wonder-formula-box but on balance in play by challenge and script.

Whether you stay in the smallest box, move to your somewhat roomier box, or drop the boxes entirely... balance (or imbalance) in play will come from challenge and script.

Think of it this way...

sometime ago, you ran games using your smaller box and got balance and fun.
you have now realized that box wasn't the right way to go, that you can still have balance and fun in a much more lenient roomier box. After gaining some experience, you realize you were overly limiting yourself and now can branch out further.

So, what I am saying is consider that maybe the roomier box you have now moved into isn't actually the largest box? Maybe this formula is "overly resticting your options in the search for balance on paper" just like the older box was?

Its worth considering, isn't it? Might save you some time, skipping a few years play in this roomier box before considering "can i stretch out some more?"

[Ki-rin]

I like this system as it actually measures meaningful things.

Thanks!

I also like flipping the equation on its head and calculating how many attacks from a generic opponent the character can be expected to survive.

Yep. This was the other standard use for it.

The largest blind spot in this equation is that it is very effective to build a character that can generate an enormous amount of damage with a low hit frquency. Although such a character will not generate a lot of damage wrt the hit %* damage inflicted * SPD equation (thanks to the low hit %), there are numerous methods of denying a target some or all of their DCV, so either using something to augment their own hit % (darkness field, entangle damage field, etc) or with the aid of a teammate (martial throw, flash etc) such a character can be a game breaker.

This is mostly an artifact of HERO being originally designed "Brick Centric". Str and Con are just outrageously efficient/effective (anyone remember the old references to "The Str and Con Pump"?). It's taken 20+ years of work to get other character conceptions (EB, MA, Speedster, etc) even as close to equality to the Brick as they have, and we still haven't completely achieved parity. Which is part of what I was trying to help fix when I came up with this (see my posts on SPD and Str for some of the other attempts I've made in this direction).

As much as play test has shown this to be an improvement over other methods, as Tesuji has been pointing out HERO is still a system that needs a good GM making good decisions. Hopefully, this can make GMing to the correct decision easier in some circumstances and therefore make HERO more accessible to a wider skill/experience range of people.

OTOH, I have no problem with characters defeating others by using superior tactics and/or superior teamwork. That's not a "game breaker" from my POV, but a justly earned reward for cooperation and role playing. "Meta-gaming" a'la The Rules Rapist (tm) _always_ bothers me. "In-gaming" to a better result means the players are more engaged and having more fun

[Ki-rin]

... Unless all combats are one on one arena battles, there is no rational (or possible) way to factor in things like teammates' actions and the effect environment and sfx have on a combat. My low damage character Zl'f once spent almost an entire combat Legsweeping a supertough villain so our slower "heavies" could hammer the bad guy while he was prone and hence at half DCV. On paper with this formula (or any other I've ever seen in 23 years of Champions) my character was utterly incapable of beating that villain because she couldn't hit hard enough to get through his defenses. As it was she was absolutely critical to our team's victory over that particular foe.

...and THAT'S =exactly= the kind of thing I like to see. No one is "just standing around being bored" and waiting until there's a situation that more fits their character to do stuff. Superior tactics and teamwork (which meant more players being involved, which meant a better gaming experience) are what won that battle. IME, that's a great deal more fun than just slugfest races to see who runs out of STUN and/or Body first.

[Trebuchet]

...and THAT'S =exactly= the kind of thing I like to see. No one is "just standing around being bored" and waiting until there's a situation that more fits their character to do stuff. Superior tactics and teamwork (which meant more players being involved, which meant a better gaming experience) are what won that battle. IME, that's a great deal more fun than just slugfest races to see who runs out of STUN and/or Body first.

Thanks, but I think you may have missed my point. No formula could have possibly predicted that behavior or outcome, because there simply isn't any way to calculate that kind of thing. It's not a flaw of your particular formula; it's a flaw of all such formulas. I understand what you're trying to do, but it's a hopeless task. The short formula I listed above is intended only to make sure our characters all are within shouting distance of each other so far as combat goes, nothing more.

As long as a character (and, more importantly, his or her player) feels useful there's no such thing as too powerful or too weak. If you can have a positive effect on any situation (not just combat) then you're going to have a good time. Whether that means Legsweeping the villain, protecting a fallen comrade, rendering first aid to an injured teammate, evacuating civilians, figuring out how to sabotage the megavillain's scheme, or delivering the final blow of a tough fight, EVERYONE has a good time as long as they feel useful. And usefulness will never be measurable with any kind of formula.

[prestidigitator]

I haven't read through everyone's replies thoroughly, but I spotted one really major problem with the original proposal. You can't just count expected damage per Turn. Let's say I have someone with a 100 Speed, 100 OCV, and a 1 DC attack. That sounds like roughly 100 Body and 3500 Stun (2700 Stun for a KA) per turn, but in reality anyone with a defense of 6 is never, ever going to take any damage, whereas an attacker with a 1 Speed and 28 DCs.... My example is ludicrously extreme, but I'm sure you get the idea.