This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Balance? Is it a good thing?  (Read 2581 times)

Mishihari

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • M
  • Posts: 990
Re: Balance? Is it a good thing?
« Reply #30 on: June 28, 2022, 10:32:53 AM »
Most everyone who sees this thread will already know this, but for clarity’s sake it’s useful to note that there are several different types of  “balance” in an RPG, and they’ve all already been referenced upthread.  There’s balance between the players and their opposition, balance between PCSs, and spotlight balance.

The OP was talking about balance between players and their opposition, which is useful to think about, but having combats always be “balanced” leads to a monotonous game.  I’m fine with encounters ranging from trivial to possible TPKs.  But, since it’s a game, the players should always have a chance.  The enemy may be overwhelming in combat power, but there needs to be a way to hide run, negotiate, or just avoid the encounter so the PCs don’t die.

Balance between PCs is again useful to think about, but not critical.  Some folks think that if their PC is a shade weaker than another in a particular situation, then the game is broken.  Not so.  In games like Ars Magica players take turns running massively powerful magicians, D&D style companions, and teams of weak grunts, and fun is still had by all.  An opposite example is 4E, where a focus on balance between PCs at the expense of all else pretty much wrecked the game.

The only balance that I really consider important is balance between player experiences in the game.  I call this “spotlight balance” and it’s simple.  Every player should be the star some of the time, and every player should almost always have something useful to do.

« Last Edit: June 28, 2022, 10:38:45 AM by Mishihari »

Mishihari

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • M
  • Posts: 990
Re: Balance? Is it a good thing?
« Reply #31 on: June 28, 2022, 10:33:38 AM »
oops ... <redacted>

Efaun

  • Newbie
  • *
  • E
  • Posts: 23
Re: Balance? Is it a good thing?
« Reply #32 on: June 28, 2022, 10:33:42 AM »

   All that aside, these issues of balance is why I favor GURPS and Savage Worlds for games.   The level 10 Fighter surrounded by zombies is literally at zero threat in D&D.  Same if a score of guardsmen have crossbows aimed at him.   This is not the case at all in SW and GURPS.   Even an easy steam roll has a tiny element of danger too it, and any "fair" and "even" fight has a great deal of danger in it if the player is just trading blows.  A mismatch is certain death without a bit of creativity and strategy.   
This has nothing to do with the system and everything to do with the encounter. Any system has a ratio of enemy to character where they are in no danger all the way to where they are in mortal danger. The system only changes the ratio.
Personally, I think balance is dumb. I am running an ars magica game right now. One character is an ex crusader wizard, another a muslim scholar. They are not equally effective in combat. Why on earth should I expect them to be.

The trick is just making sure that both get to have fun in the campaign and that means, that from time to time things happen, that are right up their wheelhouse, and sometimes not.

As for "I want things to happen that are solved without the character sheet"... I find that kinda dumb, because generally speaking the character sheet is where people put the stuff they want to do in the game.

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3326
Re: Balance? Is it a good thing?
« Reply #33 on: June 28, 2022, 11:02:32 AM »
The GM needs some idea of the difficulty of an encounter in order to properly convey whatever clues are present, should the players be on the ball enough to pay attention and look for the information.

I would suggest that the AD&D/RC/BEMCI system of telegraphing this information to the GM is superior to the WotC various challenge rating attempts, if for no other reason that the "Hit Dice + asterisk for special abilities" system has less false precision.  Both are about equally vague in practice, but the earlier versions reinforce that vagueness to the GM by their nature.

However, I think GM experience is the vital ingredient, and that part of the job can't really be done without it.  Because it is as much art as a procedure.
I actually agree with your assessment that AD&D/BECMI’s system of HD+ was a lot better than many of the attempts at CR by WotC.

To be slightly fair to WotC, their decision to scale quadratically with level basically requires abandoning the HD+ system of evaluation.

HD+ works because AC and damage are relatively static (stronger opponents tend to have higher values, but it is by no means guaranteed). As such the threat increases fairly linearly with HD and the variances low enough to be accounted for with the asterisks added to them.

3e however began the trend of scaling up both hit points and AC, attack bonuses and damage with increased ability scores further making the rate of increase in those less linear (a HD in AD&D was 1d8 hp for a monster; a HD in 3e was 1d6-1d12 each plus their current Con mod x HD… a 10 HD monster who gains 1HD and 2 Con gets 1dX+11 hp). The result was that threat scaled quadratically so that a 10HD opponent wasn’t twice as strong as a 5HD opponent for a level 5 party… it was three times stronger… but PCs at level 10 were also 3 times stronger than level 5’s so those 5HD monsters aren’t half the threat to them, they’re a third of the threat.

That’s one of the reasons my own system is built around linear scaling; it’s easier to judge threat when the 50 hp monster is approximately twice the threat of the 25 hp monster regardless of character level. It’s also easier to drop monsters into naturalistically when anything in significant numbers remains a threat to the PCs.

An orc camp with 100 warriors will always be a lethal threat to a party if faced all at once regardless of level in my system. In 3e they’d be a speed bump to a high level party meaning, if the GM needs a threat in the region that will test them then camp needs to be giants or even demons that are so powerful they should have obliterated the nearby by town and it’s 75 1HD warriors already.

Linear scaling both makes it easier to judge balance/threat, but also makes naturalistic world building easier in my experience.

Steven Mitchell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 3774
Re: Balance? Is it a good thing?
« Reply #34 on: June 28, 2022, 11:32:07 AM »
Chris, I agree with everything you said in that last post. 

My point, however, was more about the implied precision of the system.  I can envision, for example, a system compatible with the WotC CR versions, that had the CR number, with a few "minuses  and plusses" added on, that worked like the asterisks to constantly remind the GM that the CR is only a guideline.  Maybe a certain 3E dragon would be "CR 9+++" to indicate that, "yeah, we said it is roughly CR 9 if you play the dragon stupid in a straight fight or the PCs have magic to counter its abilities, but if you use its abilities fully against a typical party, it can punch way above its weight."  The 3E orc and 5E goblin might get one + on the same reasoning.

But yes, better to make the system more accessible to common sense, and linear advancement is definitely the way to go.  If I remember how you had it set up, I went even more linear with mine, with a boost of hit points at the front and even less scaling.  A typical fighter has something like 10 (7 + 1d6) at start, and maxes out around 92 (50 + 12d6) at the upper reaches of epic at level 24.  In any given tier, the GM can almost treat different level individuals as effectively interchangeable for encounter capabilities, with the situation and player abilities of course far more determinant for how things will go.


Headless

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1890
Re: Balance? Is it a good thing?
« Reply #35 on: June 28, 2022, 02:39:14 PM »
Quote
  As for "I want things to happen that are solved without the character sheet"... I find that kinda dumb, because generally speaking the character sheet is where people put the stuff they want to do in the game.

Sure maybe.   Players right a lot of stuff on their sheet. For example if one player is owed a favor from the duke they might right "favor from the duke" on their character sheet.  And if they need to cash it in to solve their problem, then I guess the solution is on their sheet.  But that's not really the spirt of what I ment. 

I don't want the solutions to come out of the players hand book.   Do you understand now? 

Or maybe I miss understand you?

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3326
Re: Balance? Is it a good thing?
« Reply #36 on: June 28, 2022, 08:32:59 PM »
But yes, better to make the system more accessible to common sense, and linear advancement is definitely the way to go.  If I remember how you had it set up, I went even more linear with mine, with a boost of hit points at the front and even less scaling.  A typical fighter has something like 10 (7 + 1d6) at start, and maxes out around 92 (50 + 12d6) at the upper reaches of epic at level 24.  In any given tier, the GM can almost treat different level individuals as effectively interchangeable for encounter capabilities, with the situation and player abilities of course far more determinant for how things will go.
Actually we’re pretty close on values, we end in almost the same place, but mine starts higher so the overall scaling is even less; a typical PC starts with 25 and scales up to 95, the tier breaks are basically 50 for level 6 (expert tier) and 75 for level 11 (master tier) with max level being 15. The expectation is that journeyman tier (1-5) is rather quick, expert takes about three times longer than journeyman, and master tier takes about three times longer than expert.

Efaun

  • Newbie
  • *
  • E
  • Posts: 23
Re: Balance? Is it a good thing?
« Reply #37 on: June 29, 2022, 03:26:59 AM »
Quote
  As for "I want things to happen that are solved without the character sheet"... I find that kinda dumb, because generally speaking the character sheet is where people put the stuff they want to do in the game.

Sure maybe.   Players right a lot of stuff on their sheet. For example if one player is owed a favor from the duke they might right "favor from the duke" on their character sheet.  And if they need to cash it in to solve their problem, then I guess the solution is on their sheet.  But that's not really the spirt of what I ment. 

I don't want the solutions to come out of the players hand book.   Do you understand now? 

Or maybe I miss understand you?

Yeah, you misunderstand me. A player's character sheet is where they put what they like.
If they write fighter under class, they like to be some kind of warrior. If they put knight, they also have ideas about honour. If they put wizard, etc.
This goes on to equipment etc. If people write "rope" on their character sheet, they fully expect to use that rope and ignoring that information as the gamemaster is making your job harder than it needs to be.
Players will find creative solutions all by themselves without you forcing the issue. Just be prepared for it and do not mire it in technicalities.

Wisithir

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • W
  • Posts: 229
Re: Balance? Is it a good thing?
« Reply #38 on: June 29, 2022, 06:50:34 AM »
Sure maybe.   Players right a lot of stuff on their sheet. For example if one player is owed a favor from the duke they might right "favor from the duke" on their character sheet.  And if they need to cash it in to solve their problem, then I guess the solution is on their sheet.  But that's not really the spirt of what I ment. 

I don't want the solutions to come out of the players hand book.   Do you understand now? 

Or maybe I miss understand you?

If the issue with problem solving by character sheet and treating it as buttons to push in a point and click game, I suggest...
 
Rule #1: Players Can Only Declare Actions or Ask Questions
When the DM asks a player: “what do you do,” there are only two valid responses. And neither one involves the name of a skill.

First, the player can ask the DM a question about the world or the situation. “Do I know anything about the strange rune?” “Do I recognize the name ‘The Clan of the Pointed Stick?” “Do I see anything hiding on the ceiling?” Notice, none of these things require the player to mention skills. The DM can respond with an answer or ask for a specific roll. “Make an Arcane Lore check, but only if you’re trained.” “Yes. The strange old man in the mask mentioned it last week. It is apparently a clan of martial artists.” “Make an Observation roll with a -5 penalty because its dark.”

Second, the player can describe what action his PC is taking. And he should do so as if the D&D adventure were a book and his PC was a character. It doesn’t matter what skill or ability score the player thinks his PC should roll; what matters is what the PC is actually doing in the world and what the PC is hoping to accomplish. “I’ll give the door a solid, standing kick.” “I get a running start and jump over the chasm.” “I subtly offer the guard a bribe to let us pass.” The DM will ask for rolls as appropriate or determine the result some other way.

In the first situation, players often shoot themselves in the foot by trying to use specific skills in situations in which they are clueless. How does a player know if the Order of the Star is a matter of divine lore, arcane lore, local knowledge, or history if he doesn’t recognize the name. And yet, players often respond with “can I roll a Hisory check” based on the fact that it is their highest skill and they want to roll that one.

In the second one, players treat the game world like a point-and-click adventure game. Like there’s a button labeled Climb, one labeled Diplomacy, and one labeled Religious Knowledge. Again, this causes them to sometimes choose the wrong skill. But it also causes them to focus on pushing buttons instead of thinking about the living, breathing world. In the long run, this can prevent them from coming up with complex plans that combine several actions. Or considering any action that doesn’t easily or obviously fit into a single skill.

This rule needs to be enforced and reinforced constantly. I like to use shame and sarcasm:

DM: “… and the guard refuses you entry to the Citadel.”
Player: “Can I roll a Diplomacy check?”
DM: “Sure, knock yourself out.”
Player: “27.”
DM: “Wow, that’s a really good roll. Anyway, that was fun, but what do you want to do about the guard?”
Player: “I meant I wanted to roll that check at the guard.”
DM: “Well, he’s impressed by your roll too, but he didn’t bring is twenty-sided die. Besides, he’s on duty and can’t play dice games with you right now.”

rytrasmi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
Re: Balance? Is it a good thing?
« Reply #39 on: June 29, 2022, 08:48:14 AM »
Rule #1: Players Can Only Declare Actions or Ask Questions
When the DM asks a player: “what do you do,” there are only two valid responses. And neither one involves the name of a skill.
That's some top-notch advice from Angry GM. The role play leads and the character sheet supports. It's great. For it to work really well, players should be familiar with their characters. It can break immersion when a skilled player suggests a solution that doesn't fit his character. The dude with zero climb skill is probably not going to suggest scaling a wall.

This concept has been expressed in other ways, too. One is goal and approach. A player states his goal (get over the wall) and his approach (throw my grappling hook over it and climb the rope). The GM calls for a skill test, if necessary.
The worms crawl in and the worms crawl out
The ones that crawl in are lean and thin
The ones that crawl out are fat and stout
Your eyes fall in and your teeth fall out
Your brains come tumbling down your snout
Be merry my friends
Be merry