Quote from: ggroy;656352In general, is there a precise mathematical definition of "balance"?

Nope. This is why it's good to be clear what you're talking about, why I prefer more specific terms like parity and niche protection, and why these discussions get stupid.

For example, I like rough parity and niche protection between characters of a similar level but run games with level disparities. And PvE disparity is immensely valuable in terms of both verisimilitude and good gameplay.

Quote from: Benoist;655814Evil.

Why? One thought comes to mind: Stormbringer 1-2e is awesome.

I think I ought to provide some precision on my standpoint here.

I think that rules balance as one of several design goals when creating a particular game is completely fine. I think that people who feel that they should have relatively equal options and resulting characters when they play their games is also perfectly fine.

What I am absolutely opposed to is the notion that rules balance is the be-all, end-all of game design, that it is THE objectively better design philosophy, that there is no such thing as asymmetric game design or if there is, that it's objectively inferior or worse than the alternative. That's bogus, and that notion needs to die in a fire.  

Some people will like rules that are roughly balanced. It's cool with me.

Some people will not care, and/or approach actual game balance in different ways with their games. That should be cool also.

There are many ways to go about designing games, and the school of thought that champions "balance über alles" (BÜA) is ultimately in the wrong. I have seen people having fun with characters of widely disproportionate levels at a game table - I was one such guy playing a 1E AD&D Bard at 15ish level when the other people in the group were single classed humans with characters in the upper 20s. I've seen Melnibonéan sorcerers played along side Nadsokor beggars, and seen both players have a lot of fun playing Stormbringer. I've seen people playing goofy Ewoks and R2 units next to Bounty Hunters and Smugglers in Star Wars, and again, everyone had fun in the process.

These people were not deluded or wrong. They just had a different way to go about their gaming, one that wasn't predicated on the notion that all their characters abilities must absolutely match each other in range, versatility or potency, and who enjoyed the game for different reasons other players who do care about such things would. So when I see something like "balance über alles" that directly contradicts these experiences or pretends like these people I've seen were all somehow brain damaged, and that the "holy game balance" represents some miraculous balm or precept that will magically heal them of their sad delusions, I just shake my head in disbelief.

So rules balance in the theoretical vacuum of one particular game's system, as a design goal in itself? No objection. Want to go about that kind of design? By all means, knock yourself out. As some objective measurement of the value of ALL game design and "this game is objectively better than that one because 'game' balance?" Bull-fucking-shit.

Has anyone here played some Panzerblitz, Panzer Leader, Squad Leader or whatnot with the Germans starting a scenario with a crippled force, with the explicit objective to make it through X turns or take out specific opponents' positions and whatnot, when the Allies have twice as many counters, supplies, reinforcements and all sorts of shit stacked against them? That can be a LOT of fun too for some people, and that is totally not "balanced" in the BÜA sense of the term - it's actually part of the point of the fun in such scenarios.

Well, role playing games can be played that way too.

Quote from: Benoist;656383Has anyone here played some Panzerblitz, Panzer Leader, Squad Leader or whatnot with the Germans starting a scenario with a crippled force, with the explicit objective to make it through X turns or take out specific opponents' positions and whatnot, when the Allies have twice as many counters, supplies, reinforcements and all sorts of shit stacked against them? That can be a LOT of fun too for some people, and that is totally not "balanced" in the BÜA sense of the term - it's actually part of the point of the fun in such scenarios.

Well, role playing games can be played that way too.

Indeed I have. One of my favourite scenarios involve playing as Spartans against Alexander the Great. I take it as a point of pride that I've once lost only by 3 points, managing to kill Alexander.

Although ironically enough Ben, if I was to say that "a scenario which you know you will loose" can be fun, I'd be accused by many here of "misery tourism".

Quote from: Rincewind1;656384Indeed I have. One of my favourite scenarios involve playing as Spartans against Alexander the Great. I take it as a point of pride that I've once lost only by 3 points, managing to kill Alexander.

Awesome.

Quote from: Rincewind1;656384Although ironically enough Ben, if I was to say that "a scenario which you know you will loose" can be fun, I'd be accused by many here of "misery tourism".

Were you around when thedungeondelver was pitching his Twilight 2000 game? It was basically the idea. The world has gone to hell. You are somewhere in Eastern Europe IIRC. You are fucked, and you know it. You still have your tank and your buddies though, and you're not going to let the world take you down without having your say about it.

Quote from: Benoist;656388Awesome.



Were you around when thedungeondelver was pitching his Twilight 2000 game? It was basically the idea. The world has gone to hell. You are somewhere in Eastern Europe IIRC. You are fucked, and you know it. You still have your tank and your buddies though, and you're not going to let the world take you down without having your say about it.

I might've been - it is possible that I argued that a depressing "On the Beach" style scenario was also a viable playing option.

Of course, it is also not an option that I'd like to play every campaign, or even most of it - Call of Cthulhu most comes to my mind, where vast majority of the time I allow a certain option for 'victory; for PCs, but sometimes I do go with such horrors as Colour out of Space as main villain, to remind people what they are really against. I like sometimes to GM and/or play, when the cards are marked. Another thing is whether to be upfront about this with players, or not - this depends who you play with. If random people - best so. If an old group of friends, which is used to experimentation, you may simply wish to remark that this "won't be like thing usually are". Also admittedly, such forms should best be kept for small play - either as breaks in during a longer campaign, or a 5 - 10 games tops campaign in itself.

Admittedly though, this is not entirely the balance question as asked by this thread . But I've always been a fan of the world being a cold, indifferent place to the players, rather than one that adjusts it's challenge (rating) to the party.

Quote from: jibbajibba;656345but Verisimiltude is no barrier to balance.
You can build a game easily that has both.

I have never seen one. And I've read and played ALOT of RPGs. Maybe its theoretically possible, but it has not been done in a satisfactory manner yet. To start with, however, a game would have to tackle the enormous problem of defining what mechanical balance even means.

Balance is a Chimera.  Not the monster, mind you; I just mean its a fantasy. Not the RPG-kind of fantasy, mind you.. you know what? Never mind.