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.

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]

Re: A Modest Proposal: an approach to character balancing

 

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]

Re: A Modest Proposal: an approach to character balancing

 

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]

Re: A Modest Proposal: an approach to character balancing

 

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]

Re: A Modest Proposal: an approach to character balancing

 

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 , The Mad Slasher , and The Combat Monster 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 combat balanced. As you rightly point out, there is far more to RPGs than combat.

[tesuji]

Re: A Modest Proposal: an approach to character balancing

 

 

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]

Re: A Modest Proposal: an approach to character balancing

 

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, combat balance is usually the place where The Pain exists. All the artificial heuristics, GM planning, GM "tweaks", etc regarding keeping characters and situations combat 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 that's the point.

[Trebuchet]

Re: A Modest Proposal: an approach to character balancing

 

When is the last time you saw a PC balanced superteam that had each of a SPD 3' date=' a SPD 6, and a SPD 12 character on it? Particularly where all the players and the GM were happy?[/quote']Well, our team has two SPD 4; three SPD 5; a SPD 6; and a SPD 9, and we're all pretty happy.

[BNakagawa]

Re: A Modest Proposal: an approach to character balancing

 

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]

Re: A Modest Proposal: an approach to character balancing

 

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]

Re: A Modest Proposal: an approach to character balancing

 

 

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 that's 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]

Re: A Modest Proposal: an approach to character balancing

 

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 _always_ bothers me. "In-gaming" to a better result means the players are more engaged and having more fun

[Ki-rin]

Re: A Modest Proposal: an approach to character balancing

 

... Unless all combats are one on one arena battles' date=' 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.[/quote']

...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]

Re: A Modest Proposal: an approach to character balancing

 

...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' date=' 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.[/quote']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]

Re: A Modest Proposal: an approach to character balancing

 

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.

[SleepyDrug]

Re: A Modest Proposal: an approach to character balancing

 

Curious about why every character needs to be combat effective against every character 1-1. A martial artist vs. a brick could result in the MA being unable to do direct damage.

 

Captain America beat Mister Hyde by martial throwing him off a cliff

 

Batman beat the General by tricking him onto a teleport platform and stranding him on an asteroid.

 

teamwork is the best way to create high damage. And well timed pushes.

[Trebuchet]

Re: A Modest Proposal: an approach to character balancing

 

Curious about why every character needs to be combat effective against every character 1-1. A martial artist vs. a brick could result in the MA being unable to do direct damage.

 

Captain America beat Mister Hyde by martial throwing him off a cliff

 

Batman beat the General by tricking him onto a teleport platform and stranding him on an asteroid.

 

teamwork is the best way to create high damage. And well timed pushes.

Excellent observation.

 

Unless your particular campaign features an unusual number of mano a mano combats, most RPG games (particularly Hero) involve team combats. And teams throw any kind of combat ratings formula right out the window. (How do you factor the speedsters's SPD, the MA's high CV, the brick's massive DC and Stun, and the energy projector's Force Wall into a coherent formula?)

[SleepyDrug]

Re: A Modest Proposal: an approach to character balancing

 

Excellent observation.

 

Unless your particular campaign features an unusual number of mano a mano combats, most RPG games (particularly Hero) involve team combats. And teams throw any kind of combat ratings formula right out the window. (How do you factor the speedsters's SPD, the MA's high CV, the brick's massive DC and Stun, and the energy projector's Force Wall into a coherent formula?)

 

Exactly, thats why I have no issue with the "standard range guide". Which can always be broken for a good concept.

 

However, in a campaign where everyone (except world-shatterers intended to fight 8 at a time) has a DEX of 14 to 28. Then there is no difference between a 28 DEX or a 42 DEX for a speedster; effectiveness of stats is relative to how characters in a campaign are designed. I prefer seeing PSL's to add versatility rather than CSL's. Standard Max CV of 12 is no problem if it never decreases. A speedster could always buy Lightning Reflexes (only to be faster than other speedsters)

[Trebuchet]

Re: A Modest Proposal: an approach to character balancing

 

Exactly, thats why I have no issue with the "standard range guide". Which can always be broken for a good concept.

 

However, in a campaign where everyone (except world-shatterers intended to fight 8 at a time) has a DEX of 14 to 28. Then there is no difference between a 28 DEX or a 42 DEX for a speedster; effectiveness of stats is relative to how characters in a campaign are designed. I prefer seeing PSL's to add versatility rather than CSL's. Standard Max CV of 12 is no problem if it never decreases. A speedster could always buy Lightning Reflexes (only to be faster than other speedsters)

One of the reasons we dumped "standard range" or point caps in our campaign was because we'd come to feel it was too constraining on concepts. When our damage cap was 12DC, everyone on the team did 11d6 or 12d6. Now the spread is 10-15d6. Our OCV spread now ranges from 7 to 14 plus levels. Each character on our team fills a unique "slot" because we worry more about stepping on another player's schtick than we do about damage. It's worked out very well for everyone in our campaign.

[prestidigitator]

Re: A Modest Proposal: an approach to character balancing

 

One of the reasons we dumped "standard range" or point caps in our campaign was because we'd come to feel it was too constraining on concepts. When our damage cap was 12DC' date=' everyone on the team did 11d6 or 12d6. Now the spread is 10-15d6. Our OCV spread now ranges from 7 to 14 plus levels. Each character on our team fills a unique "slot" because we worry more about stepping on another player's [i']schtick[/i] than we do about damage. It's worked out very well for everyone in our campaign.

Sounds great to me! If it is too restrictive, change it or throw it out. Absolutely! As long as you have players that aren't going to abuse the situation at the cost of your gaming experience, it's a great thing.

[BNakagawa]

Re: A Modest Proposal: an approach to character balancing

 

I haven't read through everyone's replies thoroughly' date=' 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 [i']any[/i] damage, whereas an attacker with a 1 Speed and 28 DCs.... My example is ludicrously extreme, but I'm sure you get the idea.

 

You obviously missed the part where you subtract the campaign average defense from the incoming damage...

 

so even with an infinite spd, infinite ocv and 4d6 normal, if the campaign average def is 25, then your rating is still 0.

[BNakagawa]

Re: A Modest Proposal: an approach to character balancing

 

One of the reasons we dumped "standard range" or point caps in our campaign was because we'd come to feel it was too constraining on concepts. When our damage cap was 12DC' date=' everyone on the team did 11d6 or 12d6. Now the spread is 10-15d6. Our OCV spread now ranges from 7 to 14 plus levels. Each character on our team fills a unique "slot" because we worry more about stepping on another player's [i']schtick[/i] than we do about damage. It's worked out very well for everyone in our campaign.

 

And that's a great thing - for your group.

 

Some of us are obliged to play with powergamers and rules rapists and such a concept would fail miserably in contact with such gamers...

[Trebuchet]

Re: A Modest Proposal: an approach to character balancing

 

And that's a great thing - for your group.

 

Some of us are obliged to play with powergamers and rules rapists and such a concept would fail miserably in contact with such gamers...

Yeah, we're very fortunate in that respect. Having played for many years with just such individuals is why I determined when I started this campaign in 1992 that we simply weren't going to tolerate that kind of behavior. So our players are selected first and foremost for compatibility with the group and a willingness to accomodate fellow players even before RPG and/or Hero experience. Which may partially explain why we've got a waiting list to get in even though our next opening isn't expected until late 2006.

 

We also keep the GMs in line by allowing them to play frequently, which not only keeps them from burning out but helps remind each one of what they like and dislike when playing. Out of 8 players in our group 3 are GMs in a regular rotation and two others run scenarios as the mood strikes them. Mentor's 15 year old son is currently working on his first adventure as GM; which we expect him to run late this summer (His dad will co-GM it with him, but the adventure is his).

[zornwil]

Re: A Modest Proposal: an approach to character balancing

 

Balance is an illusion.

 

Ah, PS, lest I be misunderstood, Ki-rin's proposal seems okay to me, as these things go, I meant no offense. But "balance" is very much in the eye of the beholder.