TheRPGSite

In this post I'm presenting an hypothesis in the hope it will lead to a discussion, hopefully leading to a theory of RPGs. One able to withstand challenge and provide a solid base for RPG design and implementation. But first an assertion.

Assertion: The purpose of roleplaying games is to have adventures. This overrides any explicitely stated reason expressed in a particular game itself.

Now for the (incomplete for now) hypothesis.

1. A roleplaying game is an organized activity in which the participants play imaginary characters in an imaginary world.

2. Because of the above no RPG has ever been balanced, nor will any RPG ever be balanced.

3. The purpose of an RPG is to have adventures. (I know I repeated myself here, but it seems right to include it in the hypothesis itself.)

And that's where I get stuck. If you have any ideas regarding where we could continue, feel free to post them below. Or we could simply elaborate on those three points. Note that this hypothesis is based on years of observation.

BTW, I had a busy day, so my thoughts are not as crisp as I'd like. Anyway, comment to your heart's content. :)

What you need here is a "Therefore..."

Preferably one that makes some kind of a statement about game design.

RPGPundit

Therefore roleplaying games should be designed to create maximum adventure, not to achieve an unobtainable balance?
-Zam

RPGPundit,

You're right. I'll muckle up something.

Zamiel,

I wouldn't put it that way. :)

More like, "Therefor the goal of a good RPG design is to provide for adventure opportunities, without the artificial constraints presented by attempts to provide game balance in the traditional game sense."

Quote from: mythusmageRPGPundit,

You're right. I'll muckle up something.

Zamiel,

I wouldn't put it that way. :)

More like, "Therefor the goal of a good RPG design is to provide for adventure opportunities, without the artificial constraints presented by attempts to provide game balance in the traditional game sense."

So, what I said with more syllables? ;)
-Zam

Quote from: mythusmage2. Because of the above no RPG has ever been balanced, nor will any RPG ever be balanced.

I don't agree with this premise.  While it may be literally true in a mathematical sense, I think that balance does work as intended in well-crafted systems. The intent is to make sure that everyone's characters can handle the same sorts of opponents and that no character can dominate every situation because they are substantially more powerful than the other characters.  In that regard, I think that the Hero System and d20 are pretty "balanced" when characters at a given point level or level are designed and played by a competent player who knows how to use the system.

On a deeper level, I think a lot of players and GMs just don't know how to evaluate the impact of their decisions against the system they are using and, depending on the system and setting, it's not always easy.  The purpose of things like points, levels, and CRs is to help GMs match challenges and opponents to characters.  They are like Garanimals (http://www.garanimals.com/) for GMs and players.  

Where I think it gets confused and broken is when a point buy system tries to represent difficulty to learn as well as effectiveness (GURPS has suffered from this problem) and when systems use them for large numbers of skills that have no impact on character effectiveness in a standard adventure campaign (yes, a characters interest in origami can be fun to role-play but it makes a mess of balance if it takes points away from adventuring skills).  It can also be horribly broken if the player or GM creating a character doesn't understand how to create an effective character.

Quote from: mythusmage1. A roleplaying game is an organized activity in which the participants play imaginary characters in an imaginary world.

2. Because of the above no RPG has ever been balanced, nor will any RPG ever be balanced.

I am going to call non-sequitir here. There is nothing about 1 that implies 2.

Now there's a lot I could say about the limits and conditions on balance (I may start a thread), but I don't think you can safely talk about balance in black-and-white terms such as "can be balanced" or "cannot be balanced". Balance happens in degrees and has different aspects, some of which can be acheived easily, others that cannot.

Could you define 'adventure'?

But, a game is a contest between players, whether for the adventure goal, to determine who can earn the most XP, or who can be the DM's pet that night.

Therefore, it is important that the game balance the players in some way so that the competition isn't lopsided because of the game itself.  Better players should pull out front because they are good at the game, not because the game arbitrarily and automatically rewards them for no good reason.

Quote from: droogCould you define 'adventure'?

Have we really reached the point where I need to do this?  

By "adventuring skills" I normally mean skills used when dealing with or avoiding dangerous situations or the primary quest of the game (e.g., normally things like combat, climbing, stealth, certainly knowledge skills, perception, driving, bluffing, etc.).  See the d20 skill list for details, without the catch all "Profession".  It's what Mutant Bikes of the Atomic Wasteland refers to as a"Sissy Skill".  

The specifics of what is or isn't an "adventuring skill" will vary depending on what the nature of an "adventure" is in the game, which usually has some relationship to the goals the characters are espected to struggle to try to achieve in the game.

Quote from: GabrielBut, a game is a contest between players, whether for the adventure goal, to determine who can earn the most XP, or who can be the DM's pet that night.

I've never role-played for any of those goals and could frankly couldn't care less about them.

Quote from: GabrielTherefore, it is important that the game balance the players in some way so that the competition isn't lopsided because of the game itself.  Better players should pull out front because they are good at the game, not because the game arbitrarily and automatically rewards them for no good reason.

Consider a baseball team.  You'll find Little League, High School Varsity, College Baseball, Minor League baseball, and Major League baseball.  The players on a team are generally not competing with each other but with opponents.  The purpose of balance is akin to preventing having a Little League player show up on the field at a Major League game.  Why?  Because they'd have nothing to contribute, would look stupid, and could get hurt.  Sports rank players by effectiveness for a reason.  Schools arrange children into grades based on education for a reason.  Ski resorts rank slopes by difficulty for a reason. Game systems rank characters by effectiveness for a reason.

Quote from: John MorrowHave we really reached the point where I need to do this?

I wasn't asking you.

Quote from: droogI wasn't asking you.

OK.  I didn't think it was clear who you were asking since I was the last person to use a variant of the term before your message, which didn't specify who it was direct toward.

OK, others have already pointed out that (2) does not necessarily follow from (1).  (2) is a conclusion all its own which would require a logical argument.

-O

Quote from: John MorrowGame systems rank characters by effectiveness for a reason.

Because better play leads to increased effectiveness in game.  I can't think of ANY experience system which doesn't create this effect.  Players are always implicitly in competition because of this kind of structure.

If a game is about combat, then the players should generally start off with a more or less equal ability to participate and influence combat.  The idea is that the game should give everyone an equal chance to participate at the start, so it is vitally important there be an initial balance.  After that, better play will ultimately be rewarded.

Quote from: obrynOK, others have already pointed out that (2) does not necessarily follow from (1).  (2) is a conclusion all its own which would require a logical argument.

-O

Perhaps what the original poster meant was:

1. A roleplaying game is an organized activity in which the participants play disparate imaginary characters in an imaginary world.

2. Because of the disparity of the characters above, no RPG has ever been balanced, nor will any RPG ever be balanced.

Which is a thesis I don't believe is a universal truth.

Quote from: GabrielBecause better play leads to increased effectiveness in game.  I can't think of ANY experience system which doesn't create this effect.  Players are always implicitly in competition because of this kind of structure.

If a game is about combat, then the players should generally start off with a more or less equal ability to participate and influence combat.  The idea is that the game should give everyone an equal chance to participate at the start, so it is vitally important there be an initial balance.  After that, better play will ultimately be rewarded.

What about games without an experience system?

-mice

Quote from: GabrielBecause better play leads to increased effectiveness in game.  I can't think of ANY experience system which doesn't create this effect.  Players are always implicitly in competition because of this kind of structure.

I disagree with the idea that the purpose of balance is solely or primarily to balance the players' characters against each other.  I think that's a goal.  I think it's also to make it easier for the GM to provide appropriate challenges that are neither too easy nor too hard and also to make sure that everyone's character can play a significant role in dealing with the challege.  Not so much that the characters are competing for attention or screen time but that the players can all do something to contribute to the team effort.

I think the best use of balance in RPGs is to make sure that each player has equal (or as close to it as possible) chance to shine, in there area of focus.

So you don't the do it all character that dominates play just because the rules dictate it.

It's not so much about keeping characters from becoming powerful but goving players equal chance to contribute.

However, the system can only influence balance. In the end much of the "balance" of play is regulated by the GM.

Balance

An RPG is not a traditional game. There is no competition, there are no victory conditions. It is assumed that the player will cooperate in attaining any goals, thus a session is marked by cooperation. In effect, the players have mutual goals and not competitive goals.

There can be situations where this may not be the case, but insofar as there is no competition designed into the game it cannot be a traditional game.

In this post I'll be expanding on the first statement in the hypothesis. This should, I hope, clarify matters for the reader.

I. A roleplaying game is an organized activity in which the participants play imaginary characters in an imaginary world.

---A. "Organized Activity" means that the RPG has a set of rules which serve to describe how things work in the imaginary world, and govern what is possible in that world.

---B. "Imaginary Characters" means that the players assume the role of make believe people living in a make believe world. People who have talents and abilities, and who vary in those talents and abilities as people do in real life.

---C. "Imaginary World" means that the action during a game session occurs in a make-believe reality where much is like the real world, and much is different. It also means that the immediate environment can, and will, pose challenges of varying degrees of difficult. And that those challenges will not always be commisserate with a person's ability.

---D. The Player is therefor engaged in living an imaginary life, with all the inequities, challenges, needs, and dreams of such a live. With limitations and opportunities established by that world and the way it works.

Quote from: droogCould you define 'adventure'?

A series of uncomfortable and, very likely, hazardous events happening to some poor bastard a long, long way away. :)

Quote from: mythusmageA series of uncomfortable and, very likely, hazardous events happening to some poor bastard a long, long way away. :)

So, bare minimum (if we ignore the "very likely" as something that might not happen, and abstract "long, long way away" to mean "fictional") you're saying "A piece of fiction which includes adversity"?  i.e.  "A story"?

Is a story, set in a local, totally mundane high school, of how Kelly works up the nerve to ask Joe out to the homecoming dance an Adventure?

Quote from: mythusmageBalance

An RPG is not a traditional game. There is no competition, there are no victory conditions. It is assumed that the player will cooperate in attaining any goals, thus a session is marked by cooperation. In effect, the players have mutual goals and not competitive goals.

There can be situations where this may not be the case, but insofar as there is no competition designed into the game it cannot be a traditional game.

I think the error in thought here is that the only role that balance plays is in making competition interesting. That is, IME, incorrect.

I've wanted to start a thread on this, but I'm not quite ready to. A breif summary of why I think you off the mark here:

There are other reasons to balance characters:
1) Balancing player contribution / "spotlight time". If players lack the capability to contribute to the game in comparison to their peers, their involvement and appreciation of the game tends to diminish. If players have vastly different levels of ability to influence the setting, sometimes the GM can compensate, but it consumes time and effort and is sometimes untenable.
2) Making acceptable challenges for the group as a whole. If characters have divergant power levels in activities which the entire group is expects to participate (this usually means combat, but could also mean social situations), characters with more limited capabilities could actually be slain when (for example) the weak character engages the enemy intended for the strong character in combat.

Quote from: flyingmiceWhat about games without an experience system?

-mice

In any game there will be a reward system.  Characters will be rewarded with better equipment, more influence, greater freedom to do things of greater scope, etc.  The better players will always achieve these awards more quickly than the lesser players, and the players can and will most definitely compete to achieve these rewards.

Heads Up

I'm going to be re-writing the hypothesis. Narrowing it down to a basic one sentence thesis, with supporting statements. It'll work better that way.

The new hypothesis will start a new thread. My thanks to all who responded and gave their feedback, advice, and input in this one. Since this thread has performed it's task, I ask that the admins close it so people can focus on other threads in this forum.