Quote from: Benoist;377971Rules don't fix people's attitudes. Ever.

In practice the only "rules" that ever fixed people's attitudes, is when somebody is holding a real gun to their heads with automatic death for noncompliance.

Quote from: jhkim;377953I don't really know - but I have a suspicion that it may pre-date role-playing games.  i.e. I suspect hobbyists might have talked about the game balance within, say, the Chainmail miniatures rules.

Game balance in a wargame context is a legitimate concept, because wargames are highly procedural and by-the-rules. Miniatures wargaming varies slightly from that but usually not significantly relative to board wargaming.

In RPGs it's something entirely else, because the procedures of the games are (or can be) highly open-ended. I do think that many attempts to balance RPGs come from imposing boardgaming or wargaming concepts on roleplaying. There are two kinds of balance, the competitive balance between opposing sides, and the tactical balance between options and unit types. The former is fairly straightforward; the latter basically means there are interesting alternatives available to a player, and different alternatives might have advantages in different situations.

In RPGs, though, so much depends on the context created by the group, that balance is a chimera unless the context itself can be fixed by the designer, or all options are made equivalent in all contexts. In the process, RPGs become more like boardgames.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;377982Game balance in a wargame context is a legitimate concept, because wargames are highly procedural and by-the-rules. Miniatures wargaming varies slightly from that but usually not significantly relative to board wargaming.

In RPGs it's something entirely else, because the procedures of the games are (or can be) highly open-ended. I do think that many attempts to balance RPGs come from imposing boardgaming or wargaming concepts on roleplaying. There are two kinds of balance, the competitive balance between opposing sides, and the tactical balance between options and unit types. The former is fairly straightforward; the latter basically means there are interesting alternatives available to a player, and different alternatives might have advantages in different situations.

In RPGs, though, so much depends on the context created by the group, that balance is a chimera unless the context itself can be fixed by the designer, or all options are made equivalent in all contexts. In the process, RPGs become more like boardgames.

Right.
Without knowing the exact game context/mix (and this is meant multidimensionally), one cannot use the rules to balance the game.

I will say that the broader the mandate, the better suited a simpler, universal mechanic will perform.  But the narrower the scope, the more the advanced systems can shine.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;377982In the process, RPGs become more like boardgames.

If boardgames didn't exist, that argument wouldn't mean anything, and so I'm not sure it does.

I think something being more or less "board-gamey" is a matter of style and means of conflict resolution and the tools involved (the use of a board, or chits and other accessories) rather than being rooted in a designer's want for game-balance.

If you want to argue that they're more focused, then sure, I'll give you that.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;377982Game balance in a wargame context is a legitimate concept, because wargames are highly procedural and by-the-rules. Miniatures wargaming varies slightly from that but usually not significantly relative to board wargaming.

In RPGs it's something entirely else, because the procedures of the games are (or can be) highly open-ended. I do think that many attempts to balance RPGs come from imposing boardgaming or wargaming concepts on roleplaying. There are two kinds of balance, the competitive balance between opposing sides, and the tactical balance between options and unit types. The former is fairly straightforward; the latter basically means there are interesting alternatives available to a player, and different alternatives might have advantages in different situations.

In RPGs, though, so much depends on the context created by the group, that balance is a chimera unless the context itself can be fixed by the designer, or all options are made equivalent in all contexts. In the process, RPGs become more like boardgames.

Wargame balance is a big deal because games are competitive. It's that simple.

RPG balance is more similar to a videogame's concept of balance: Player options that are grossly suboptimal will never be used (and therefore are a waste of space). Player options that are grossly overpowered will be used every time, and eliminate the fun of choosing (which is somewhat worse, as it makes everything else look like wasted space). That's the theory anyway, and only based on its extremes (moderately suboptimal options or moderately more powerful options are pretty okay).

Old school RPGs are sometimes different from new school RPGs in that you don't always have a choice. You roll abilities randomly, and your abilities determine which class you can join. If you can be a paladin or a fighter, you might pick paladin, but for someone else, the optimal choice is wizard. Lifepath generation is similar.

New school RPGs are *still* different from computer games in that computer games come with premade worlds or levels, so which skills are more useful are pretty easy to determine, whereas skills can become optimal or suboptimal based on highly variable gameplay in tabletop RPGs.

"Rules balance" is a weird phrase to me because rules apply to everybody and are therefore balanced. "Game balance" is weird because what you do varies game to game. "Options balance" is the most sensible concept, but is still limited by the fact that you do different things in different games. Another way to put it may be "role balance." Especially since this applies mostly to character creation. When there are multiple options (say) in combat and you've got to choose between (say) disarming, tripping, punching, whatever, that might be more of a "gameplay balance."

Balance means a bunch of stuff... sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it doesn't. New school players like making choices to be built into the rules. Which means that many if not most choices must be valid.

Quote from: Benoist;377971Rules don't fix people's attitudes. Ever.

Rules don't fix people's attitudes, but rules can lessen the impact. Rules can't fix a jerk, but rules can lessen the effect of a powergamer to the point where it bothers the other players less.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;378017Rules don't fix people's attitudes, but rules can lessen the impact. Rules can't fix a jerk, but rules can lessen the effect of a powergamer to the point where it bothers the other players less.

I don't even think that's true.

Rules are built to reward people who want particular things out of a game, not dissuade "bad" behavior.  Even Forge theory doesn't try to create mechanics to "keep people in line."

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;378017Rules don't fix people's attitudes, but rules can lessen the impact. Rules can't fix a jerk, but rules can lessen the effect of a powergamer to the point where it bothers the other players less.

Nope.

I'm kind of sad for you that you seemingly keep running into assholes at game tables and have no idea how to handle them.

Quote from: Peregrin;377984If boardgames didn't exist, that argument wouldn't mean anything

And if I had wheels, I'd be a trolley car.

My point is not that RPGs are or are not like some hypothetical category known as boardgames, but that attempts at balance are derived
from actual cultural expectations derived from actual experience with competitive games. While you can make a game that fits those expectations of competitive balance, an insistence on "balance or it's broken" restricts design and play far more than necessary.

I'm a rocketship!

Quote from: Peregrin;378018I don't even think that's true.

Rules are built to reward people who want particular things out of a game, not dissuade "bad" behavior.  Even Forge theory doesn't try to create mechanics to "keep people in line."

It doesn't and it does. The typical method in Forge games is to remove all the tools that might enable a power gamer to seek advantage, thus diminishing the impact of tactical thinking and forcing everything through a moral conflict resolution lens.

Sometimes they fail to ward off tactical thinking, only simulationist dynamics, while allowing tactical powergaming through dissociative mechanics. E.g. DitV. Other times, they do succeed, but either way it severely impairs the use of character-perspecive thought.

Quote from: Aos;378024I'm a rocketship!

I knew that already.

Quote from: beejazz;377994Wargame balance is a big deal because games are competitive. It's that simple.
[snip]

New school RPGs are *still* different from computer games in that computer games come with premade worlds or levels, so which skills are more useful are pretty easy to determine, whereas skills can become optimal or suboptimal based on highly variable gameplay in tabletop RPGs.

I agree. This is what I'm talking about when I refer to controlling the context. If you get to define the game's goals in terms of winning/losing, and you get to define the win/loss conditions, and you get to define the challenges that the players have to overcome, then it's possible to define balance into the game. Otherwise it's a questionable concept.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;378022And if I had wheels, I'd be a trolley car.

My point is not that RPGs are or are not like some hypothetical category known as boardgames, but that attempts at balance are derived
from actual cultural expectations derived from actual experience with competitive games. While you can make a game that fits those expectations of competitive balance, an insistence on "balance or it's broken" restricts design and play far more than necessary.

I don't see the type of "balance" in most RPGs as competitive, though. As others have said, it's more or less a way to allow diversity while downplaying the uselessness or neglect that some options have throughout the life of the game as a franchise or whatever.

It's basically just acknowledging that people avoided playing certain options in games, like bards in 3.x, and attempting to introduce methods to make sure that all options are viable in what is perceived to be the most common form of play.

I'm all for options, and breadth of a ruleset, but if it's one of those cases where I have to sacrifice playing a competent character (not even optimized), and the only reason to play a suboptimal character is some sort of high-brow "roleplaying a less-than-average character because I'm a method actor" BS that gets tossed around in White-Wolf circles a lot, then I'm not going to bother with those options.

Options are fine, as long as they're significant for the type of game I'm playing.  I'm not into charop or anything, but the choices I make should mean something within the context of play.  It's why I enjoy OD&D and BD&D so much -- there is a much better noise to signal ratio.  That, and within the context of older TSR editions, game-balance in OD&D is much better than 3.x.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;378025It doesn't and it does. The typical method in Forge games is to remove all the tools that might enable a power gamer to seek advantage, thus diminishing the impact of tactical thinking and forcing everything through a moral conflict resolution lens.

Sometimes they fail to ward off tactical thinking, only simulationist dynamics, while allowing tactical powergaming through dissociative mechanics. E.g. DitV. Other times, they do succeed, but either way it severely impairs the use of character-perspecive thought.

I just mean that most are built with the assumption that you're going into it together acknowledging that you want the same sorts of things from the game, not pulling out a Forge game one night because Billy keeps being a jerk.

Quote from: beejazz;377994RPG balance is more similar to a videogame's concept of balance: Player options that are grossly suboptimal will never be used (and therefore are a waste of space).

One RPG campaign or play style's "waste of space" is another campaign or play style's  "must have." This is  especially true in a general purpose RPG like D&D has been (up until 4e when it suddenly became far more specialized for a specific style of play). Player options that might never be used in the campaigns and styles of play you enjoy might always be used in those enjoyed by another person.

Perhaps this is a possible old school/new school divide? Popular old school games tended to be more general (useful for a wide variety of campaigns and styles of play) whereas popular new school games tend to be less general (more focused on a specific style of play -- or a related group of styles of play).

QuoteThat, and within the context of older TSR editions, game-balance in OD&D is much better than 3.x.

They both strike me as being fairly poorly balanced at the rules level, that is they depend on the GM to keep things balanced for his campaign by saying "no" to over-the-top (for a particular campaign) power-gaming. Note that this is the best type of "balance" IMHO.