Quote from: talysman;655881There should be a (crude) balance between any two arbitrary classes. Not because the game is aesthetically or "objectively" better if it's balanced, but because munchkins get carried away otherwise.

The best way to balance for munchkins is to removed them from the gaming group.

As a word, "balance" is about as vague as "realism." I'd prefer to be clear and say that I like rough parity and some niche protection or dissimilar assets.

As with many other things, the difference between "perfect" and "good enough" matters much less than the difference between "good enough" and "not good enough." If there isn't a gross disparity, that's good enough. If there were perfect parity, that wouldn't really improve things much.

Quote from: gleichman;655878It isn't the point of Levels in my game, far from it. They control advancement and relationship to the world- they don't balance power or effectiveness.

Yup but everyone is advancing against the world so you might as well move them forward at the same pace if you are going to have a mechanic. If its too tricky for you to manage ...

Quote from: beejazz;655890As with many other things, the difference between "perfect" and "good enough" matters much less than the difference between "good enough" and "not good enough." If there isn't a gross disparity, that's good enough. If there were perfect parity, that wouldn't really improve things much.

I can certainly agree to this.

Quote from: jibbajibba;655894Yup but everyone is advancing against the world so you might as well move them forward at the same pace if you are going to have a mechanic. If its too tricky for you to manage ...

They do move forward at the same pace. But the roads people take care little for balance between them.

Quote from: Bill;655490I think gross imbalance between two characters that are 'similar' can be trouble, depending on the players expectations.

It is indeed trouble and it is up to the referee to set the tone of the game and to communicate effectively the type of game he is running. If a player is intent on being a dick about it then that is a out of game issue.

I spent a lot of years learning how to communicate this effectively for my own Majestic Wilderlands. The following seems to work most of the time.

QuoteNo attempt has been made to balance these rules in terms of game mechanics. In my campaign the players are part of a living, breathing world where actions have consequences and rewards other than the gaining of experience, a magic item or the slaying of the latest dragon. This meant that I needed rules to expand the world outside of the dungeon. I took ideas from history and other RPGs, like Traveller, Ars Magica, and Harn. I crafted a series of rule systems that filled out the world above the ground with as much detail as I found in the dungeons below. Trade, politics, culture, society, religion and magic were all plundered to create rules to support an interesting setting. This allowed the players to create a lasting impact to the Majestic Wilderlands.

In my campaign the fact one fighter has 18/00 strength and 9's and 10's rolled for HD versus the other fighter with lower strength and lower hit points pales in comparison as to the place both characters have carved out for themselves. If the players are smart they each would have roleplayed  to maximized their character's strengths and minimize the opportunities for other to exploit their weakness. And finally players learn that having the power to slay all in reach is not sufficient.

Quote from: estar;655900It is indeed trouble and it is up to the referee to set the tone of the game and to communicate effectively the type of game he is running. If a player is intent on being a dick about it then that is a out of game issue.

I spent a lot of years learning how to communicate this effectively for my own Majestic Wilderlands. The following seems to work most of the time.



In my campaign the fact one fighter has 18/00 strength and 9's and 10's rolled for HD versus the other fighter with lower strength and lower hit points pales in comparison as to the place both characters have carved out for themselves. If the players are smart they each would have roleplayed  to maximized their character's strengths and minimize the opportunities for other to exploit their weakness. And finally players learn that having the power to slay all in reach is not sufficient.

That is what I do as a gm, but I have had players that choose a fighter because they want to fight, and are not really interested in being a great leader, or the like. Also, the stronger fighter could easily also be stronger in cleverness and ambition.

Quote from: Bill;655490Some people desire some degree of balance among characters, others don't care if it exists at all.

What do you think?

Balance in a game is brought in with the personalities of the Players and the GM, not with the rules.

Quote from: jeff37923;655928Balance in a game is brought in with the personalities of the Players and the GM, not with the rules.

Can I play poker with you where I get 7 cards and you get 5?

Or snakes and ladders and I use a d20 and you use a d6 ....

Quote from: jibbajibba;655938Can I play poker with you where I get 7 cards and you get 5?

Or snakes and ladders and I use a d20 and you use a d6 ....

We've really been over the problems of cooperative game versus competitive game a 1000000000000000000000000 times, haven't we?

So if someone in your D&D group asked to start 10 levels above everyone else, you'd let them? Or asked to roll 5d6 for all their stats?

I don't really play D&D. I mean, I have this campaign, but it's on hold, and we have a free relationship I mean we may move it into BRP again, since the players who was against the change left anyway

If such a person would give me really, really good reason why, I would. But I'd need an extremely good reason. Like perhaps if they were playing a demigod, and everyone else'd be on board with being a part of his/her entourage.

And on a more serious example, and not a complete hyperbole - I had people start out characters, after they've swapped/their characters died, a character that was less developed as the rest of the team. Usually the difference was about 1 - 3 levels, or a 100 - 150 build points in BRP, so not terribly.

Quote from: Bill;655909That is what I do as a gm, but I have had players that choose a fighter because they want to fight, and are not really interested in being a great leader, or the like. Also, the stronger fighter could easily also be stronger in cleverness and ambition.

Making a lasting impact also accommodates those who just want to fight. What happens with players with type of interest is that the scope of change they make is often smaller in scope but still having a major impact. Typically variations of a person becoming wealthy. The important thing to remember that in my campaigns all players wind up with a network of friends, enemies, rivals, and allies. The player's ambitions in conjunction with how they roleplay with their network is what winds up shaping their final circumstances.

It sounds more formal than it how it actually works. The key technique I use is to imagine how things would work if these people actually existed and roleplay them accordingly. The resulting events are the natural result of the player responding as a person even if they are just roleplaying a version of themselves.

The downside is that I have to take copious notes. In addition it is a technique that benefits greatly from having a lot of personal life experience and paying attention to people. Because at it core it involves the referee being able to look at the situation from another point of view. Something that some people find difficult to do.

 Note there is nothing wrong with that as there are other ways of refereeing that are fun for the group. Basically refereeing from the third person rather than first person.

Quote from: jibbajibba;655938Can I play poker with you where I get 7 cards and you get 5?

Or snakes and ladders and I use a d20 and you use a d6 ....

No, because that is an asshole move. Why do you want to be an asshole?

Quote from: Rincewind1;655943We've really been over the problems of cooperative game versus competitive game a 1000000000000000000000000 times, haven't we?

Yes, we have.

Quote from: soviet;655945So if someone in your D&D group asked to start 10 levels above everyone else, you'd let them? Or asked to roll 5d6 for all their stats?

For the first one, yes., depending on the Player. In fact, with the CR system of XP rewards in 3.x, it works to the Player's disadvantage since challenges for the rest of the group would get that Player no XP when overcome.

For the second one, I again have to say depending on the Player. I have gamed with Players who have PCs that are overwhelmingly advantageous but don't use them to be assholes to the other Players.

I know that there is a certain type of Player whose idea of fun is to piss off everyone else at the table. I don't let them have overwhelmingly advantageous characters.

Quote from: jeff37923;655961For the first one, yes., depending on the Player. In fact, with the CR system of XP rewards in 3.x, it works to the Player's disadvantage since challenges for the rest of the group would get that Player no XP when overcome.

For the second one, I again have to say depending on the Player. I have gamed with Players who have PCs that are overwhelmingly advantageous but don't use them to be assholes to the other Players.

OK, cool. Well for me the purpose of game balance is to make these decisions obvious. If you want the players to have more or less equally powerful characters, you can run the system as written. If you want one character to be more powerful, you can do that too by giving him extra levels or stat boosts or whatever.

But the key is, you know that you're allowing player A to have a more powerful character than everyone else, because it fits his background or your campaign idea or you're going to throw appropriately higher level enemies against him later. It's a deliberate choice. The system is transparent.

But when you have a game where balance is fucked, this is more of a crapshoot. Player A's character might be way more powerful than player B's simply because tech ninjas happen to be mechanically superior to gunslingers in that edition of the game, and maybe not in an obvious way. The GM then has to try to rebalance things on an ad hoc basis as the game's problems reveal themselves in play, rather than being able to plan for these issues upfront.

Also there's a risk that some players are effectively penalised because they prefer the flavour of the (it turns out) much weaker classes. Their decision then is to play what they want (fluff) or to play what's effective (mechanics). I'd rather have a balanced game that lets people play what they want and be effective.