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.
Quote from: -E.;355882If everyone's optimized for a different aspect -- and every aspect has a role to play in the adventure -- then you have balance.
That is one way to play it, and not at all wrong. Another way would be a more generalized party, with specialties, but no optimizations; while yet another would be a mix of optimized and non-optimized characters. It's all good.
QuoteIf 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.
Pretty much. In a well designed game you can be good at two or three things, but not "the best". I put "the best" in quotes to indicate something like world class. You can be the best navigator in the crew and still not be very good if no one else can do it at all.
QuoteIn 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?
This sort of thing is best handled by the group level. They know what they want to do better than I do.
QuoteIt'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.
Well, that's how I run games. I had a new player come into one of my games. He promptly tweaked his character out as a combat monster. I OK'd the character. He played it for a few weeks, then came to me saying he wanted to redesign the character. When I asked why, he said that he made a character that was too optimized for combat. He couldn't do anything else well, and felt left out when the others we not in combat. So we toned it down a bit - no longer world class, but still a master. Then he could pick up other skills and broaden his interests a bit. That's what I meant when I said optimization can be it's own punishment. Itraps you into one thing. I don't know how others play my games, but however they do, it should work out fine.
-clash
Quote from: HinterWelt;355919"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.
As usual, we are cloned from the same donor, Bill! :D
-clash
Looking at 4E D&D, the one notion of "balance" which appears to be preserved with some precision in 1-on-1 combat duels, is for the case of a hypothetical "normal humanoid" where all the ability stats are 10 with no bonuses (and ignoring stat boosts at higher levels, for the sake of argument).
With the attacks and defenses having a +level/2 modifier, a hypothetical "normal humanoid" of any level has a 55% probability of hitting another "normal humanoid" of the same level (give or take one level up or down). The +level/2 modifier preserves this 55% probability.
I suspect this is possibly what the 4E designers started off with.
In earlier editions of D&D/AD&D, the base attack bonus varied from class to class (instead of a flat +level/2). It didn't appear that "balance" on the level of a 1-on-1 combat duel was the objective.
Quote from: flyingmice;355846A 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.
-clash
Amen Brother!
The same goes for design that limits abuse by bad GMs. A lot of elements of modern game design seem to be bringing on the era of the "nanny game", trying to curtail or prevent bad GMs or bad players. You start down that road and you too easily end up with the "this is how the game should be played" result, ie. most Forge games.
You get a rockin' GM who doesn't railroad and gives his players a real immersive world to sink their teeth into, no one talks about "screen-time", "shared authority" or "narrative focus", they're too busy having fun roleplaying their asses off.
Lots of replies! I was off running a game, so I have to catch up.
Quote from: HinterWelt;355919"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.
It's clearly fair to say different people mean different things by balance -- that was the whole point of the the thread... but saying balance causes problems make a lot of assumptions about the mechanism used to create balance.
Hero is an example of a hugely flexible game that made a real attempt at balance. It's probably my poster child for a game that's both extremely flexible and... at least reasonably... balanced. It's clearly a game that put a lot of thought into balance, at any rate.
I've played all kinds of games in it and I have to say that claims that it's somehow crippled because of it's care about balance seem... wrong to me.
Like 180-degrees wrong.
I'd be interested to hear your analysis of it.
Quote from: flyingmice;355951Well, that's how I run games. I had a new player come into one of my games. He promptly tweaked his character out as a combat monster. I OK'd the character. He played it for a few weeks, then came to me saying he wanted to redesign the character. When I asked why, he said that he made a character that was too optimized for combat. He couldn't do anything else well, and felt left out when the others we not in combat. So we toned it down a bit - no longer world class, but still a master. Then he could pick up other skills and broaden his interests a bit. That's what I meant when I said optimization can be it's own punishment. Itraps you into one thing. I don't know how others play my games, but however they do, it should work out fine.
-clash
Do you do super-hero games? Because those typically have a good deal of combat and (in my experience) get the best results when everyone's relatively even in power.
Unlike games focused on more realistic characters, supers games usually let you be a great scientist or a super detective or whatever fairly cheaply and only really charge for combat stuff -- so you get a scenario where no one's left out of the game for being a combat monster (even the combat monster has a few points left over for some other stuff).
If you do supers games, do you have the same approach?
Quote from: ggroy;355963Looking at 4E D&D, the one notion of "balance" which appears to be preserved with some precision in 1-on-1 combat duels, is for the case of a hypothetical "normal humanoid" where all the ability stats are 10 with no bonuses (and ignoring stat boosts at higher levels, for the sake of argument).
With the attacks and defenses having a +level/2 modifier, a hypothetical "normal humanoid" of any level has a 55% probability of hitting another "normal humanoid" of the same level (give or take one level up or down). The +level/2 modifier preserves this 55% probability.
I suspect this is possibly what the 4E designers started off with.
In earlier editions of D&D/AD&D, the base attack bonus varied from class to class (instead of a flat +level/2). It didn't appear that "balance" on the level of a 1-on-1 combat duel was the objective.
That sounds about right. Question: in 4e, is everyone expected to fight at about the same level, regardless of class? If so, that would be a radical departure from AD&D...
Quote from: CRKrueger;355993Amen Brother!
The same goes for design that limits abuse by bad GMs. A lot of elements of modern game design seem to be bringing on the era of the "nanny game", trying to curtail or prevent bad GMs or bad players. You start down that road and you too easily end up with the "this is how the game should be played" result, ie. most Forge games.
You get a rockin' GM who doesn't railroad and gives his players a real immersive world to sink their teeth into, no one talks about "screen-time", "shared authority" or "narrative focus", they're too busy having fun roleplaying their asses off.
... I'm struggling to see the Hero system as a "nanny game."
But it's (as I said above) a poster child for "balance."
I don't think balance is in the same category as the other things you've listed -- those are all story-telling elements. Balance is just having rules and a character build system that's had a lot of thought put into it.
Do you see Hero as either
a) A "nanny game" or
b) A game you wouldn't consider especially focused on balance?
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: -E.;356001Do you do super-hero games? Because those typically have a good deal of combat and (in my experience) get the best results when everyone's relatively even in power.
Unlike games focused on more realistic characters, supers games usually let you be a great scientist or a super detective or whatever fairly cheaply and only really charge for combat stuff -- so you get a scenario where no one's left out of the game for being a combat monster (even the combat monster has a few points left over for some other stuff).
If you do supers games, do you have the same approach?
Cheers,
-E.
Not much. In fact, hardly ever. When I do, I tend to focus a lot on the heroes' secret identities and relationships. My Supers game of choice, Tim Kirk's Hearts and Souls, doesn't put a huge emphasis on the powers, instead focusing on why they do what they do. Before that game came out, I refused to run or play supers games.
-clash
Quote from: flyingmice;356003Not much. In fact, hardly ever. When I do, I tend to focus a lot on the heroes' secret identities and relationships. My Supers game of choice, Tim Kirk's Hearts and Souls, doesn't put a huge emphasis on the powers, instead focusing on why they do what they do. Before that game came out, I refused to run or play supers games.
-clash
That makes a lot of sense -- meaning the focus of your games and the style you play to. That would de-emphasize combat as a focus and make balance a much less important consideration.
I run a variety of games. The one I'm running now (was running tonight) is quite combat heavy (combat about once every other week). The one before it... much less so (the PC's were pretty overwhelmingly dominant combat-wise). While the generic systems I play tend to treat combat balance as at least a tertiary priority, it's not always a priority in the campaigns, themselves (trying to work out adventures where everyone has at least something to contribute *is* a priority for me, but not an absolute one).
For me a balanced system is definitely a nice-to-have.
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: -E.;356001That sounds about right. Question: in 4e, is everyone expected to fight at about the same level, regardless of class? If so, that would be a radical departure from AD&D...
A party of players is typically at the same level.
The opponents the party fights in encounters, generically is roughly one generic badguy/monster of the same level for each player, if one is to go by the encounter construction guidelines in the 4E DMG. (A minion is one quarter of a normal monster). So it too is approximately a 1-to-1, if one uses generic monsters. If one uses minions, then one generic monster is replaced with four minions. Tougher monsters or mini-bosses can replace two or more generic monsters, depending on how tough they are.
For example, if a generic monster is 100 XP points, then an encounter fighting a five player party will be 500 XP points. The encounter is built up from the monsters XPs summing up to 500. A minionized version of a generic monster will be 25 XP, in this example. (Minions die when hit once). The monsters chosen don't have to be the same level as the players. But higher level monsters eat up more of the 500 XP encounter budget.
In 4E, generic monsters of any level (irrespective of race, class, etc ...) are constructed starting with "cookie cutter" stats. The crunch related to the monsters' race, class, etc ... are added in on top, which may change some of the stats and abilities.
In practice I've found that most 4E generic monsters are killed after 2 or 3 hits, when they're fighting 1-on-1 against a corresponding player party of the same number and level.
EDIT: It seems that going to higher levels including magic weapons, stat boosts, etc ..., the 4E designers may have attempted to maintain a 3 hits kill for generic monsters at almost any level. An unstated implicit assumption of magic weapons perhaps points to possibly why hit points go up really fast in 4E monsters. Sort of munchkin-like when it comes to magic perhaps.
Quote from: ggroy;356013In 4E, generic monsters of any level (irrespective of race, class, etc ...) are constructed starting with "cookie cutter" stats. The crunch related to the monsters' race, class, etc ... are added in on top, which may change some of the stats and abilities.
In practice I've found that most 4E generic monsters are killed after 2 or 3 hits, when they're fighting 1-on-1 against a corresponding player party of the same number and level.
EDIT: It seems that going to higher levels including magic weapons, stat boosts, etc ..., the 4E designers may have attempted to maintain a 3 hits kill for generic monsters at almost any level. An unstated implicit assumption of magic weapons perhaps points to possibly why hit points go up really fast in 4E monsters. Sort of munchkin-like when it comes to magic perhaps.
It sounds like the designers put a lot of thought into how long they wanted fights to last (in general) and what the PC's ought to be like (including accounting for magic items)
All things being equal, this sounds like effort that would make the game more enjoyable (caveats apply) -- as a GM, I can be reasonably assured that a given opposing force will be perform as-expected against the PC's... which is never a bad thing.
My guess is that not everything's equal, though -- as I understand it the "price" for this level of reliability could a fairly un-inspired or restrictive set of PC options.
But thanks for this analysis -- it sounds like 4e's definition and approach to Balance are reasonably aligned with what I was thinking about!
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: -E.;356074It sounds like the designers put a lot of thought into how long they wanted fights to last (in general) and what the PC's ought to be like (including accounting for magic items)
Looking more closely at the to-hit mod to the d20 attack rolls in 4E, I did an analysis of it in an enworld post at:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/5061101-post14.html
With a player's primary stat starting at 18, along with the assumption of enhancement bonuses (of magic weapons) in the 4E PHB and the regular player stat boosts at higher levels, the to-hit mod of the d20 attacks rolls are approximately:
to-hit mod = level + 3, at heroic tiers of levels 1 to 10
to-hit mod = level + 2, at paragon tiers of levels 11 to 20
to-hit mod = level, at epic tiers of levels 21 to 30.
Not quite exact, but close enough to:
to-hit mod = level/2 + stat mod + enhancement ~ +level
If one does a similar analysis for the defense stats which are directly dependent on the player's primary stat, such as fortitude for a fighter, ranger or paladin, one approximately has:
fortitude = 10 + level/2 + stat mod + enhancement ~ 10 + level
EDIT: This 55% to-hit probability may also be preserved for a player's attack using it's primary stat, against an opponent's defense based on it's primary stat. (The player and opponent are of the same level).
EDIT: Interesting how this 55% probability of hitting a target in combat is implemented, albeit buried in the mechanics of stat mods and enhancement magic bonuses.
I'll have to think more about how AC works in 4E.