what is the best way to balance characters?

[nytflyr]

heres my delema, and its been knawing at me for quire some time. it deals with fantasy characters mostly, but whenever I want to run a fantasy game i want to encourage the use of other races, however I percieve it as being unbalanced in one way or the other depending on how it is implemented.

 

the first way is a package deal, which you pay full price for, which severly limits the non human character, all for what usually amounts to something like 1pip KA claws and dark vison.

 

the other option is for these non humans to just pay the package cost (abilities-disads), which is percieved by the players of humans to be a bad deal for them...

 

any ideas?

[tiger]

Well

 

I have them pay for all the abilities of the race. I have to admit even in D&D I always thought it was a bit unfair to those who decided to run a human that the non-human races had an advantage for free.

 

Oh! there were level resriction but I don't know anyone who used them.

 

As for FH. IF you think it's unfair for non-human to pay for all their abilities you could give them a price break or extra points, something along those lines.

[kirakane]

Often balance among players only becomes major issue if they replicate each others role in the party or there is truely only one way to progress or seek reward. Otherwise it's really not an issue that Race A can shoot laser beams from it's eyes and Race B can't because they are all in the same party and complement each other's abilities and are working twards the same goal. There is that detant between GM to Player and Player to Player that everyone get's there moment to shine.

 

Those people seeking the Min_Maxed character will take races to maximize stats and abilites outside of the NCM (therefor should pay for any "fluff" skill and abilties) and those that are looking for flavor it won't matter too.

 

I would strongly encourage players not to just look at each other's combat potential but what role do they fullfil in a party. It's certainly ok to have a party full of mages for instance if you have the battle-mage, healer-mage, and the stealth-mage for instance.

[Markdoc]

There's no "unfairness" to non-humans, since everybody pays for what they get.

 

However, some racial streotypes are hard to fit into a decent points total. What I have done is to try to balance things off. Thus racial package deals I design come out to 0 points. A begining Faerie character (an "Elf", say) is going to have more points than a human. He/she/it will have a much longer life-span (note - not life expectancy!), and innate magical powers not available to a human. That's balanced by a deadly susceptibility to iron...

 

It seems to work. Nonhuman PCs popped up in my game, but no one race ever predominated - except humans. A good rule of thumb is that if everyone seems to want to play a particular race, then it needs rebalancing. In some cases, I would not allow a non-human PC, even if the points balance. I am a bit queasy at the thought of a starting PC vampire, even though my vampire package works out at 0 total points (so I can drop it on PCs as and when needed, without having to mess with points totals).

 

cheers, Mark

[AnotherSkip]

Originally posted by Markdoc

but no one race ever predominated - except humans. A good rule of thumb is that if everyone seems to want to play a particular race, then it needs rebalancing. cheers, Mark

 

 

Saaay Mark, look like you need to rebalance Humans if everyone want's to play them.

 

(yes im kidding)

[Templar Jakob]

I had a similar problem with many systems before i began playing Hero. Why would people want to play a human in D&D when elves get so many better advantages (at least in 2nd Edition. never really looked at 3rd)? Assuming you want the three basic races; Elves, Dwarves, and Humans, i found that it wasnt that hard. With a little help from my friends the balancing came pretty simple. Altering their base stats, different everyman skills, plus a few racial disadvantages it wasnt that difficult. I give them all normal characteristic maxima, but alter the base and max characteristic. Small example of some of the things other races get.......

Elves:

higher base running

higher base Dex

higher base comliness

lower base STR

 

Dwarves:

lower base running

higher base STR

higher base CON

lower base DEX

 

Humans:

normal characteristic maxima

 

Also think of the utility other races have access to. Elves, typicly, being long lived, have worlds of knowedge at their disposal. Dwarves, typicly master craftsmen, have access to superior weapons and armor. Altering stats correctly might just be enough for some campaigns. Some GM's look at the society effects of having other races in the party. Elves being rarely seen in my capaign world could be advantagous. There are thousands of different uses to having other races in a campaign party aside from what their stats are. Ask friends, preferably ones that dont play your adventure, for what they think. Ultimately it boils down to you and what you think fits. I hope i have aided you in some small way.

 

Bryan

[hybris]

Originally posted by tiger

I have to admit even in D&D I always thought it was a bit unfair to those who decided to run a human that the non-human races had an advantage for free.

 

Oh! there were level resriction but I don't know anyone who used them.

Originally posted by Templar Jakob

Why would people want to play a human in D&D when elves get so many better advantages (at least in 2nd Edition. never really looked at 3rd)?

 

Oh yeah. But they fixed that in 3e, making humans more versatily than other races. That is, they get more skill points per level and also a bonus feat at 1st level. (Feats are neat abilities a character can have, slightly similar to Talents in HERO. And you always get too few of them so even 1 bonus feat is a very neat thing.)

What's more, humans can now multiclass more freely than everyone else (well, except for half-elves, who can multiclass just as freely).

Level limits have been abolished, too.

[AnotherSkip]

Actually _everyone_ suffers the same level limits.

 

level 20

 

 

And one Xp table to rule them all....

 

Gee I havent seen _that_ since the 80's!

[hybris]

Absolutely right, assuming you don't use the Epic-Level Handbook.

[Lxndr]

I always say that racially-acquired disadvantages dont' count against the disadvantage limit.

 

It's worked perfectly so far. We have suffered no balance issues. All you have to do when making the races is make sure the disadvantages are worth the points, and then ENFORCE them...

[Wyrm Ouroboros]

Actually, that is exactly where I'd say the problem is -- the GM isn't handling the racial packages correctly. Or at least, how I always saw them as being properly used.

 

Pay for your racial advantages.

Disadvantages accrue.

 

This way, humans have greater flexibility ('spent 15 points on that elf package? Hell, I got 5 more skills...') but also a greater chance of being hunted, having psychological problems, or just being more 'well-known'. This, of course, rather assumes the 'humanocentric' campaign. If you want your campaign to be elf-centric (or dwarf-centric, or whatever), you can include the package 'for free', thus enticing individuals to take the package.

[tesuji]

One thought would be to have a "human" package deal or deals.

 

Basically, figure out what traits humans have that make them distinct from the other races... the default does not have to be "humans lack distinction".

 

Example the first: In this world humans are known for their communities and ability to make communities and relationships everywhere they go as opposed to the other races who tend to be zenophobic. Humans could have package deals including bonuses to charisma (er presence), bonuses with social skills (probably skill levels) and maybe even linguist as an attribute showing they take to the other races languages well, also facilitating interaction. In this type of campaign, the human figures would be the glue that holds together diverse groups.

 

Example the second: In this world there are many different groups of man, each with its own strong cultural ties. The various package deals for "man" give you the cultural experience and training. The Rovers of the Plains might get packages with lots of riding, warfare, archery and basic plundering traits to represent their "takes from those who make" and "if you cannot keep it it wasn't yours in the first place" pillaging society training. meanwhile, the Hillmen of the peaks might have climbing, mining, and crafts common to their package deals. In thiese cases, "man" or different groups of men could have as strong a cultural impact and as diverse a cultural bias as elves and dwarves.

[Vanguard00]

In my game world elves are not tree-hugging flightly people with bows and magic. They are warriors of a great empire. Well, "great" = decadent and in it's declining years. But they have distinct properties when put into caste and class. Similarly, the humans of the empire are second-class citizens, though they can make a good living as merchants and soldiers. Lastly, dwarves just want to be left alone. I won't get into the other half-dozen or so races. Suffice to say they are conquered and beaten people with little of their own culture remaining.

 

How does all this balance out? I want my PCs more inclined to play humans than not because that's what my campaign is about. They know going in, however, that elves in general have it better than they do. One elf soldier is a match for one PC character. An officer might have trouble with 2 or 3 PCs, but that's about it. The point is, it isn't always about balance. It's about the needs of the campaign and the GMs ability to make that clear.

 

So first define your concept of "balance". What's on the other side of the scale? If you're talking about one race against another, what are they doing? My elves are in no way physically inferior to humans. They are as strong or stronger, just as fast or faster, just as smart or smarter, and probably have better weapons and magic at their disposal. They have the benefit of being the dominant race on the continent and they have a millenia of history and experience to draw on. Balanced against that is the fact that I intend humans to come out on top plain and simple. That's the goal, the point, the plot, the agenda, and whatever else you want to call it.

 

Balance is the ability to play one's weakness as a strength, and another's strength as a weakness. So far my PCs can do that, with only occassional (and subtle) guidance from me. Overall plot considerations, arms and magic and money are all balanced against the goals and the PCs willingness and ability to achieve them. I expect it'll work out in the end.

 

And yes, other racial packages cost, but usually only 1-5 pts, depending. I usually make sure that, at least, balances out

[slaughterj]

Re: what is the best way to balance characters?

 

Originally posted by nytflyr

heres my delema, and its been knawing at me for quire some time. it deals with fantasy characters mostly, but whenever I want to run a fantasy game i want to encourage the use of other races, however I percieve it as being unbalanced in one way or the other depending on how it is implemented.

 

the first way is a package deal, which you pay full price for, which severly limits the non human character, all for what usually amounts to something like 1pip KA claws and dark vison.

 

the other option is for these non humans to just pay the package cost (abilities-disads), which is percieved by the players of humans to be a bad deal for them...

 

any ideas?

 

I've used both methods, and from my experience, favor the first way. The second way (unless perhaps done like tesuji suggests) has the same issues that old-style D&D had - why be a human? The first way can be problematic if there are low-use items included in the races' packages, so that needs to be taken into account. Also, be sure to separate out racial packages from cultural packages, and make the racial packages be the must-have things (i.e., elves having infravision), while the cultural packages have what the races might've learned while growing up and let those contents be flexible or provide options in them. Something I do (and some seem to inexplicably disagree with) is that I give Humans and non-Humans all the Disadvantage - Distinctive Features - "Race", e.g., Human, Elf, Dwarf, etc., because the Human will be distinctive among any non-Human, just as the Elf will be distinctive among any non-Elf, etc.

 

By way of example, here's a link to the races I created in Hero terms based on the Atlantean Trilogy (Arcanum, etc. by Bard Games): http://www.yandros.com/AtlanteanRaces.htm

 

On there, the racial "powers" are fairly limited, thus the PC's points won't be eaten up much by taking a given race - most are from 0-10 pts. The highest one is the Andamen (a race of beast-men) with 31pts allocated, but only particular players trying to make particular (appropriate) characters would take that race, and make use of the rces's abilities - one might think that 11pts allocated to natural weapons is a lot, but it effectively results in 3 1/2d6K attacks when unarmed (based on 5e attack rules) (1/2d6K no STR bite, 1/2d6K claws which allow STR, but are reduced pen), which isn't too shabby for the situations that warrant it and don't require 1/2 action to draw a weapon or the fastdraw skill.

[Killer Shrike]

If you are concerned about balancing Humans vs non-Humans, give Humans a "Race" Package Deal as well. Just make it generic and non-cultural (Any 1 Talent from list: {Bleh} or X points of Perks, Any 1 PS, Any 1 AK, Any 1 KS, Upgrade any 2 Everyman Skills to full skills); throw in a Disadvantage suitable to your setting which might apply to all humans and there you go.

 

Alternately, make "Sub-race" Package Deals for humans if you have distinct types of humans which have various pros/cons. Frex, if you have a barbaric race of humans who are renowned for thier hardiness, which youve determined is inherent to them (and not just a side effect of surviving in a harsh environment which thus wouldnt apply to one of thier number raised elsewhere), then make a package deal for them and include a small bonus to CON or BODY (+1 CON/ +1 BODY isnt a big deal mechanically, but flavors the 'race'), and perhaps (but not necessarily) some con the race similarly suffers from inherently.

[Markdoc]

We have opened a whole new topic here, when it comes to cultural packages! :-)

 

I have always treated culture seperate from race and would never have contemplated putting skills in a racial package. The idea that all dwarves share the same culture when clans might live continents apart and seperated for hundreds of years is just as silly as assuming a monolithic "human cuture".

 

Racial packages (for me) are physical/mental/magical characteristics. So if you are an elf you get the tall, skinny, slanty-eyes routine along with the magical powers and susceptibility to iron. If you are a dwarf, you get short, hairy and strong.

 

But just because Elves have a tendency towards hairdressing and interior design and dwarves towards digging and designing Weapons of Mass Destruction, doesn't mean tat every Elf or Dwarf has those skills: they therefore do not belong in a racial package, as far as I am concerned.

 

All that stuff belongs in cultural packages, which (in my games) is in effect a short list of everyman skills, I generate for each class and culture. Likewise, I list the available skill modifiers for cultures. So if a Dwarf is not afraid of being stereotyped, he can choose the "dwarven smith" skill modifier and buy up all the appropriate skills (weaponsmith, PS: Smith, KS: weapons and armour, etc) at 1 point off the normal cost. In other words, being immersed in a culture makes it more likely that a particular dwarf will have typically dwarvish skills. But it is not a given.

 

Likewise, the psych lim.s greedy and vengeful are common among dwarves because in dwarvish society these are regarded as character traits, rather than flaws. But they are not universal.

 

Cheers, Mark

[Legendsmiths]

So, let me see if I can sum this up.

 

If you have a package deal that forces a player to have specific powers, he doesn't have as much control over his character's development?

 

I don't see a huge problem with that.

 

1. Keep racial abilities to a minimum.

2. Use everyman skills to accent racial differences.

3. Characters must pay for racial disadvantages.

 

What this means is that the mandatory racial abilities will dictate what type of characters get played. If you have a big burly race, the only time they get played will be when someone wants to be big and burly? Is that so bad? Should they be as good a wizard or thief as a human?

 

If everyone pays for their abilities, by default it is balanced. The one tweak you could make is altering their characteristic maxima as a mandatory racial disad. Obviously if all you are doing is increasing the maxima it isn't a disad, but usually you want to decrease it as well.

 

Take Dwarves for example. Why force a -2 DEX on all Dwarves? They aren't clumsy, so that doesn't make any sense. What you want to say is that they won't be olympic gymnasts so, their max dex is 16. But they are tough, so their max CON is 23 and they get 1/2 END on their STR (or something). Both Humans and Dwarves start out with 10 DEX, but the Dwarf just doesn't have the potential. If the race really is different (base) then do this -1" Running, and -2" Running Max. Using the Age disad as a guide, if the bad maxima outweigh the good you could award a -5 or -10 disad.

 

Take a race of pixie-fairies. -10 STR (base 0), but I don't want a 10 STR fairy either. So, I set their max at 5. Now, I've compensated for the STR reduction (-10 points), but I need to compensate for the max reduction. I raise their max speed to 5 and their DEX to 25, along with a BODY max of 10 (and base -6), CON max of 13 (and base -3). Running is -4" (max -4"), but they get flight at 0 END (magical) 6". And so on, you get the idea.

 

This balances well and helps enforce things like avoiding STR 20 hobbits and the like.

 

I hope this helps. It does take some thought, but it makes for very balanced and interesting races. My players have really enjoyed the detail and variability, and no one has complained about not being able to make a STR 20 fairy or a Speed 5 DEX 20 Ogre.