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 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.