I read the Merles / D&D 4th Ed thread. I still play 3.5, so I wasn't able to comment on the 4th Ed stuff specifically, but I thought a thread talking about what balance is might be interesting.

It's something I've been thinking about recently.

Two points before I jump in though:

Does Balance Matter?
I think balance is important in a game, but mainly to ensure that there are a variety of valid, diverse character designs who can all play in the same party without the GM having to work too hard to make challenging, satisfying fights for the whole group.

Point-Buy As A Standard
I assume some kind of point-buy character gen approach for this post, but I think the points could be applied to any system where players get to make decisions and balance is a priority. Obviously a game like Traveler would fit more poorly.

I assume the Balance is supposed to make the game more fun to play
Whether balance is important or not, it doesn't make sense to talk about it without having some basic goals agreed on. I think the basic theory about balance is that characters in the same party (Same points) should be about as powerful as each other and should be able to fight the same enemies with roughly the same effectiveness. Clearly this is contingent on other things (no one expects the Thief to fight as well as the Fighter, but they should both be able to go in the same dungeon).

Here's my thinking on what balance basically means and where I've got questions I don't know the answer to:

A Basic (inadequate) Definition of 'Balance':
Any two characters built on the same points should win a fair 50% of the time.

To my mind this is a minimalistic definition of balance which is a critical starting point, but doesn't get the job done without at least a few supporting points:

* Fight Fair: The basic scenario assumes the characters fight in neutral terrain and neither is surprised, caught flat-footed, etc. May assume weapons are drawn at the start of the fight. Probably assumes something like 20-paces (~60') range (so a guy with a laser gun has some advantage on a guy with a sword, I guess)...

* % Spam: The 50/50 split assumes the same amount of character points are spent on combat stuff. A character who spent most of his points on being pretty or a brilliant scientist wouldn't win half the time against a combat machine. Balance simply assumes that whatever the % is, it's the same (and if someone chooses more spam, they have no reason to complain when they're not as effective).

* Character Design Strategy: If the game supports a variety of character design strategies then some strategies may be inherently more effective against others, and a character employing "Rock Strategy" will win more fights against the guy on the same points who employed "Scissors" strategy and lose more fight to the guy who went with "Paper Strategy."

* No Optimal Design Strategy?: If there's some character design strategy that beats all other strategies (e.g. if Sword + Shield beats all other legal combinations) then maybe you can't call game isn't properly balanced.However, if there's some strategy that beats most other strategies, but loses to one that's not (otherwise) dominant, that might still be considered "balanced."

Some open questions I don't know the answer to:

Ganging up on one guy?
What does a "balanced" game say about n-on-1 fights? Should a character built on 100 points fight 2 50pt characters to a stand-still? What about characters that are built to exploit team attacks -- how do they rate/rank?

One Guy against the army?
Let's say I make a guy designed to take out multiple (assumedly lower powered) opponents (say he has an area-of-effect attack)... If the game makes me less effective against peers, is that proper? How much less effective should I be?

Strategic Capabilities?
If a character has abilities that tends to give him advantages in terrain (e.g. flight) or surprise (silent movement, long-range sensors, invisibility) or surveillance (Spidey Sense, always-on-X-ray vision) how should those be charged for? He might win 50/50 in a fair fight, but win considerably more in a real game. Would such a character be considered "unbalanced?"

Balance over Character Progression (e.g. AD&D Magic User)?
If a character starts out as an ineffective basket case and then becomes more powerful than everyone else, would that be considered balanced? I dislike this kind of thing for a variety of personal reasons, but it seems statistically valid under some circumstances. I don't see that many modern games that are as extreme as AD&D was, so maybe this kind of "balance" is out of favor.

Anyway, those were my thoughts.

Cheers,
-E.

Right off the bat, Game Balance and Combat Balance are only the same thing if the game is about Combat.  If the game is about something else... like "Adventures" and Combat is only one part of that, then Game Balance is NOT the same thing as Combat Balance.

Quote from: Stuart;355732Right off the bat, Game Balance and Combat Balance are only the same thing if the game is about Combat.  If the game is about something else... like "Adventures" and Combat is only one part of that, then Game Balance is NOT the same thing as Combat Balance.

True, but balance beyond combat becomes extremely hard to define from a game-design standpoint.

There's a basic idea that "everyone should have the same amount to do" but I'm not sure exactly what the game designer's role in that is -- that seems like something the GM does.

Games like D&D sort of imply that each class has a role to play in an adventure, so there's some kind of built-in balance there, but

a) A lot of games don't have that kind of niche-definition built in (e.g. GURPS, Hero, etc.)
b) Even those that do mostly don't strictly enforce it (e.g. absolutely require a cleric or whatever). D&D 4th Ed might do more of that--I don't know--but the games I'm aware of don't do that.

How would you define non-combat aspects of balance from a game-rules (vs. a GM-adventure-design) perspective?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.;355737True, but balance beyond combat becomes extremely hard to define from a game-design standpoint.

It depends on the game, and what you're trying to do. Also, by balance do you mean "niche protection" or "prevent min/maxing" or "equal time to different types of gameplay"? You could have the first 2 of those and not the 3rd, for example.

Quote from: -E.;355737There's a basic idea that "everyone should have the same amount to do" but I'm not sure exactly what the game designer's role in that is -- that seems like something the GM does.

I agree this is really something the GM needs to do. It also makes a difference if you mean "everyone should have the same amount to do" during: each game, each type of game activity, constantly.

Quote from: -E.;355737Games like D&D sort of imply that each class has a role to play in an adventure, so there's some kind of built-in balance there, but

a) A lot of games don't have that kind of niche-definition built in (e.g. GURPS, Hero, etc.)
b) Even those that do mostly don't strictly enforce it (e.g. absolutely require a cleric or whatever). D&D 4th Ed might do more of that--I don't know--but the games I'm aware of don't do that.

Games without classes and with point-buy based character generation won't tend to have the same niche protection a class based game does.

Quote from: -E.;355737How would you define non-combat aspects of balance from a game-rules (vs. a GM-adventure-design) perspective?

If you have a game like Shadowrun where 1/4 of the game is spent on each of:  Gun Fights, Vehicle Combat, Decking, Interacting with NPCs -- and a party of a Street Samurai, a Rigger, a Decker, and a Detective then you might find that the game is "balanced" in that each character has the key skills needed during 25% of the game.  But like you said, so much of that is dependant on GM-Adventure-Design.  The GM could make that 75% combat and 20% Decking and 5% Interacting with NPCs.  Some of the players might feel like their characters are more useful than others.  Or maybe  not, depending on the group and the social side of things that aren't part of the game rules themselves.

If by "balance" you mean "relative importance to success" then even though the combats took 75% of the time - the 5% spent interacting with the NPCs is what was most critical to "winning" the adventure.  

So in one sense it's not balanced, but in another sense it is.

Quote from: Stuart;355740It depends on the game, and what you're trying to do. Also, by balance do you mean "niche protection" or "prevent min/maxing" or "equal time to different types of gameplay"? You could have the first 2 of those and not the 3rd, for example.

I agree this is really something the GM needs to do. It also makes a difference if you mean "everyone should have the same amount to do" during: each game, each type of game activity, constantly.

Games without classes and with point-buy based character generation won't tend to have the same niche protection a class based game does.

If you have a game like Shadowrun where 1/4 of the game is spent on each of:  Gun Fights, Vehicle Combat, Decking, Interacting with NPCs -- and a party of a Street Samurai, a Rigger, a Decker, and a Detective then you might find that the game is "balanced" in that each character has the key skills needed during 25% of the game.  But like you said, so much of that is dependant on GM-Adventure-Design.  The GM could make that 75% combat and 20% Decking and 5% Interacting with NPCs.  Some of the players might feel like their characters are more useful than others.  Or maybe  not, depending on the group and the social side of things that aren't part of the game rules themselves.

If by "balance" you mean "relative importance to success" then even though the combats took 75% of the time - the 5% spent interacting with the NPCs is what was most critical to "winning" the adventure.  

So in one sense it's not balanced, but in another sense it is.

I fundamentally agree with you -- I'd say niches and niche protection are the non-combat elements of balance -- if there's a key role for a Thief, then the fact that the Thief can't go toe-to-toe with the fighter doesn't detract from anyone's enjoyment.  And the game should make sure there's not a class that's as good a thief as the Thief and as good in combat as the Fighter.

However, for games without real niches -- or games like Supers Genre* games where everyone's expected to fight in the same battles -- combat balance becomes important along side niche concerns.

One reason I think combat balance deserves it's own discussion is that I find it fairly easy to design adventures where everyone will get to do whatever their niche is (also, to avoid adventures that require a niche no one took). I think the GM can fairly easily match adventure elements to the characters.

But combat is fundamentally harder to do that with (at least with a complex system) -- if one player has made a character that is super-dominant in a game where everyone's supposed to be reasonably comparable, there's a problem. From that perspective the game designer is supposed to ensure that character builds that ought to be reasonably comparable are.

Cheers,
-E.

* If you're doing a strict emulation of comics, team members may vary wildly in power and role -- there are a couple of game strategies to address this, but most Supers RPGs I've played in or run posit teams where everyone's basically the same level.

The question is meaningless to me.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;355751The question is meaningless to me.

-clash

Since you took the effort to reply, could you expand on that a little more?

Is it that you don't understand what I'm saying (the question is literally meaningless) or that it's meaningless because you don't see any value in rules-established balance?

If it's the former, I could try to clarify.

If it's the latter, I'd wonder if you'd see any problem with a game system with a single optimal combat build that was sufficiently dominant that anyone who cared about being effective in combat would be stupid to take a different strategy?

Because I see balance as being a way to support diversity (the spice of life, I've heard) amongst players who, to some degree, would also like their characters to be effective.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.;355754Since you took the effort to reply, could you expand on that a little more?

Is it that you don't understand what I'm saying (the question is literally meaningless) or that it's meaningless because you don't see any value in rules-established balance?

If it's the former, I could try to clarify.

If it's the latter, I'd wonder if you'd see any problem with a game system with a single optimal combat build that was sufficiently dominant that anyone who cared about being effective in combat would be stupid to take a different strategy?

Because I see balance as being a way to support diversity (the spice of life, I've heard) amongst players who, to some degree, would also like their characters to be effective.

Cheers,
-E.

If you are inflating the meaning of game balance to mean "anything but one optimal build", you have rendered the question meaningless, as that would just be obviously bad, no, more explicitly, stupid design. Otherwise it's not a big deal. When it is a major concern to the designers, the game shows it in obvious ways which render it unappealing to me.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;355758If you are inflating the meaning of game balance to mean "anything but one optimal build", you have rendered the question meaningless, as that would just be obviously bad, no, more explicitly, stupid design. Otherwise it's not a big deal. When it is a major concern to the designers, the game shows it in obvious ways which render it unappealing to me.

-clash

The optimal-build example was intentionally extreme -- I was just trying to find an extremely clear example of what I'd consider "unbalance" to understand what you were saying.

I wasn't trying to prove a point or trap you: I think a possible (legitimate) answer would have been, "For a historical or realistic game where there more-or-less *is* one optimal approach, then the game should reflect that*."

Anyway, I actually agree with your point here -- games which have balance as a major concern have all kinds of ways they can go wrong. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion, though -- I enjoy a variety of super hero games where I think balance is a serious concern, and while I don't think any of the games get it quite right, I think games like Hero and Mutants & Masterminds are at worst decent.

Of course these are complex games with lots of subsystems and character design options -- the kinds of games I like. A game that achieved balance by going 'rules light' would probably be more successful (simpler, fewer choices, easier to balance), but far less interesting to me.

Cheers,
-E.

*(I'm told that's the case with Sword & Shield... and that any fantasy game that made dual-weapons a comparable choice would be--from a realism standpoint--ridiculous. I have no experience with sword fighting and no idea if this is true, but I *like* holding two blades as an option, and I'd prefer games that render a variety of character concepts effective, realistic or not)

To me, the difference between a "class" game (OD&D, AD&D) and a "skill" game (2E, 3E, 4E) is largely about the non-combat game balance.

If a player can only pick from class options, that game has an inherent balance assuming that it was designed that way. In other words, the thief gains sneaky options but loses combat options, which is a fair trade. The cleric loses from combat options and gains spell options, mostly not of a combat nature. The magic user loses a lot of combat options but gains a limited number of potentially damage-inflicting spells. You can argue whether the designers did a good job or not, but the class concept is all about game balance.

When you get to later 2E and beyond the game evolves into one of skills. Now a fighter can add sneaky options without losing any fighting capabilities. I see this as a loss in balance. In one of the optional 2E "character build" rules, a magic-user could pay points to gain certain spell lists, so could give up a couple of spell types in order to gain healing spells but not give up a quantity of spells cast. Again, a loss in balance. Any time a character can pick and choose options from other classes, the careful game balance gets tipped one way or the other.

That's just my two coppers.

Quote from: -E.;355814The optimal-build example was intentionally extreme -- I was just trying to find an extremely clear example of what I'd consider "unbalance" to understand what you were saying.

I wasn't trying to prove a point or trap you: I think a possible (legitimate) answer would have been, "For a historical or realistic game where there more-or-less *is* one optimal approach, then the game should reflect that*."

Anyway, I actually agree with your point here -- games which have balance as a major concern have all kinds of ways they can go wrong. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion, though -- I enjoy a variety of super hero games where I think balance is a serious concern, and while I don't think any of the games get it quite right, I think games like Hero and Mutants & Masterminds are at worst decent.

Of course these are complex games with lots of subsystems and character design options -- the kinds of games I like. A game that achieved balance by going 'rules light' would probably be more successful (simpler, fewer choices, easier to balance), but far less interesting to me.

Cheers,
-E.

I personally also love character options, the more the better. My own games are about 20-25% character options, and I prefer games with a similar ratio. A long time ago, S. John Ross told me that whatever is done in game design to limit abuse by bad players also serves to limit use by the good players. I looked around at various games and saw he was right. instead of forcing balsnce and limiting bad players, I prefer games that let players do whatever they want within the game's parameters, with the understanding that abuse - i.e. making an "optimized" character - is it's own punishment. You have enough choices so that making a character optimized for one aspect of play makes him useless or nearly so for any other aspect. This is self-balancing design. If the group decides to only play to one aspect, well then that's a group choice, and there are enough different ways to "optimize" a character for any one aspect that everyone can still play different characters.

-clash

Quote from: finarvyn;355819To me, the difference between a "class" game (OD&D, AD&D) and a "skill" game (2E, 3E, 4E) is largely about the non-combat game balance.

If a player can only pick from class options, that game has an inherent balance assuming that it was designed that way. In other words, the thief gains sneaky options but loses combat options, which is a fair trade. The cleric loses from combat options and gains spell options, mostly not of a combat nature. The magic user loses a lot of combat options but gains a limited number of potentially damage-inflicting spells. You can argue whether the designers did a good job or not, but the class concept is all about game balance.

When you get to later 2E and beyond the game evolves into one of skills. Now a fighter can add sneaky options without losing any fighting capabilities. I see this as a loss in balance. In one of the optional 2E "character build" rules, a magic-user could pay points to gain certain spell lists, so could give up a couple of spell types in order to gain healing spells but not give up a quantity of spells cast. Again, a loss in balance. Any time a character can pick and choose options from other classes, the careful game balance gets tipped one way or the other.

That's just my two coppers.

1) I basically agree. Certainly class-based games build in roles and niches and that provides (or should provide) a robust framework for ensuring balance (both combat and non-combat)

2) For skill-based games (or, more generally, more free-form games like supers) clearly it's a problem and the situation you outlined -- where the fighter-thief is a good a fighter as the dedicated fighter -- would be a real problem from a diversity standpoint.

3) I play primarily skill-based games (like GURPS) with no defined classes and vaguely defined or player-defined niches. In the games I play in characters typically have (or are generally assumed to have) about the same level combat ability and then have a non-combat specialty of some kind. That may be why I'm more focused on combat balance than other posters...

Quote from: flyingmice;355846I personally also love character options, the more the better. My own games are about 20-25% character options, and I prefer games with a similar ratio. A long time ago, S. John Ross told me that whatever is done in game design to limit abuse by bad players also serves to limit use by the good players. I looked around at various games and saw he was right. instead of forcing balsnce and limiting bad players, I prefer games that let players do whatever they want within the game's parameters, with the understanding that abuse - i.e. making an "optimized" character - is it's own punishment. You have enough choices so that making a character optimized for one aspect of play makes him useless or nearly so for any other aspect. This is self-balancing design. If the group decides to only play to one aspect, well then that's a group choice, and there are enough different ways to "optimize" a character for any one aspect that everyone can still play different characters.

-clash

If everyone's optimized for a different aspect -- and every aspect has a role to play in the adventure -- then you have balance.

If the game's designed so that I can optimize for multiple aspects (say be the best fighter, the ship's captain, and the best navigator), I'd consider it a game-design flaw.

It sounds like you'd agree.

In your games do you have niches or classes defined (either explicitly or otherwise) or do you leave it to the players to figure out what their niches will be for any given game?

It's pretty clear from the answers here (both yours and the other ones) that my view of balance as primarily a combat issue isn't widely shared -- everyone who's responded sees combat as being just one of many aspects and not even a particularly dominant one.

Cheers,
-E.

One precise way of defining "balance" would be two player characters of equal level (but different classes, races, etc ...), will on average have a 50% probability of killing one or the other in a 1-on-1 combat duel.

Though unfortunately, this definition of "balance" may make the different player characters to be somewhat "cookie cutter" in terms of mechanics.

Quote from: ggroy;355886One precise way of defining "balance" would be two player characters of equal level (but different classes, races, etc ...), will on average have a 50% probability of killing one or the other in a 1-on-1 combat duel.

Though unfortunately, this definition of "balance" may make the different player characters to be somewhat "cookie cutter" in terms of mechanics.

The 50/50 split is where I start, too. And yeah -- the cookie-cutter thing is obviously a real problem... but I don't think has to be an insurmountable one (at least not within reasonable tolerances for error).

But I think the 50/50 chance-of-victory definition isn't entirely adequate (as I outlined in my OP) --  it doesn't address issues with multiples, for instance, and it doesn't address different character-build strategies which might validly be said to support balance, even if any two characters have a non-50/50 chance.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: flyingmice;355846I personally also love character options, the more the better. My own games are about 20-25% character options, and I prefer games with a similar ratio. A long time ago, S. John Ross told me that whatever is done in game design to limit abuse by bad players also serves to limit use by the good players. I looked around at various games and saw he was right. instead of forcing balsnce and limiting bad players, I prefer games that let players do whatever they want within the game's parameters, with the understanding that abuse - i.e. making an "optimized" character - is it's own punishment. You have enough choices so that making a character optimized for one aspect of play makes him useless or nearly so for any other aspect. This is self-balancing design. If the group decides to only play to one aspect, well then that's a group choice, and there are enough different ways to "optimize" a character for any one aspect that everyone can still play different characters.

-clash

"Balance" much like the concept of "fair" in life is an affectation. People bring their own ideas of what a "balanced" game is to a system and seldom is there anything objectively balanced to draw on.

I am with you on this Clash. More, I have designed my games so a character can begin the journey in one direction, then switch or pick up skills unrtelated to his "class"...kind of like life. I am not a "game designer". I am not a "software developer". I am not a "gourmand". I am not a "coffee snob". I have skills in all these things and they do not make me "better" or "equal" or "balanced" with the next human being.

Now, do not get me wrong, "balance" is a comforting idea, just like the idea that the world is "fair" and you will get your chance. Also, I am not saying that game balance should be banned!!!111!!111! from game design but it is not my method and I think it bring a lot more problems than it solves.