Game Balance

[Kirby1024]

Just from the Divis Mal thread, had an interesting thought that probably needs it's own thread.

What, precisely, is game balance? And more importantly, how important is it really?

We all spout it out a lot, saying that something is "unbalanced" in a certain way, or that a game "lacks balance", but I don't think I've ever actually had someone give me a proper, full definition of what, exactly, makes a game balanced. Most of the time, we expect that everyone knows exactly what we're talking about when we say game balance, and honestly, I think that's more than a little dangerous.

I'll admit, this has come out of my research into RPG theory, and the fact that it has come up again has just given me the excuse to pop my head up and ask people around here to think about it. We talk so much about how certain powers "break a game", but again, what does that mean? Does it mean that the game becomes unplayable?

I don't think that's exactly right; because (taking Aberrant as an example), Quantum Supremacy is often talked about as "Game Breaking", but while I am aware of the rules ramifications, I have yet to identify the play ramifications. Sure, you get permanent powers for pretty much free, and sure, you can come up with whatever you need, but once you hit this point, is that really it? Can no fun and entertaining play emerge from a game that reaches this point?

The thing is, I GM Nobilis, the Game of Gods (effectively). It's power level is insane, it's rules are structured but quite free-form, and more importantly, what you are a god of is almost completely unrestricted. As GM, you're supposed to throw out those domains that are uncomfortable to you, but I've heard story from a lot of people who had players who were the "God of Stuff", or "God of Time", or "God of Entropy", and these are far-reaching domains that can, in many ways act like Quantum Supremacy - whatever you need, whenever you need it, or near-abouts. Hell, I've introduce a type of Mundane Magic in the game I run that lets one of the players create anything they like, which runs however they expect it to run, which vanishes when they have no need for it.

But in none of these events have these domains created a situation where the players weren't having fun. Quite the contrary - the Players have managed to use the wide-ranging domains and capabilities and used them to create highly entertaining situations. I highly enjoy the Nobilis game I'm running, and I've been pretty lenient in what Players do with their characters (to the point where one player now has 5 characters, that share the same character sheet). So it seems clear to me that these sorts of "game-breaking" situations obviously aren't, or at the very least don't inevitably lead to unfun play.

It's kind of a dogma that all RPGs should have "balance", and that there are such things as "game-breaking" capabilities, and I'm aware that a few people may look askance at me trying to rock the boat here. But I think it's worth looking at this let's face it very ill-defined concept of balance, and try to give a real, working definition - one that's not reliant on us giving examples, and that can be given to someone without being circular.

So, what's Game Balance?

[Y.T.]

One Issue I have with game balance is this. If style means you lose out over raw power,then the game is unbalanced. If saying my character wants to have tattoo on his face,and that would cause me to lose Ability points. Or if I spend the same amount of point on a "fire ball" as you. But my fire ball is bigger cause I believe in God,and you do not. If I put forth the same amount of things and get more or less than another play because I have lack or have style.

Basic game balance should come down to this, if two players both do the same thing, save their style.They should both be the same in terms of power. That is to say a oair of faces should both be on level playing ground in social areas.Two brick should be the same as well(this assuming they are both using the same abillities and mojo.)

Also those who are specialized should be better at that field than those who are not.D20 has feats that either gives you bonuses to spiefic weapons, or style of fighting. The problem is that The long sword master is not any better in fighting than the Cleave master, even when both are using long swords. But when they use Axes the cleave master is just as good as he was using the long sword..The long sword master isn't.

So style should not make you better or worse.And Specializing should make you better at you special field than something genaric.At least in your field.

Now let's get to game breaking. In D&D and I think just all of d20, a level 9 mage can get any magic item and any number of them.At no XP lose...

[Hugin]

It's individual to the game, the players and the gamemaster.

One of my experiences of "game balance" being broken. One of the players in a D20 game I was in is a genius, and I mean genius, when it comes to making the most effective characters possible. Highest defensive ability, capable of dealing out massive damage. Fairly quickly in the game, about 8th level our DM was faced with a certain fact. If he wanted to challenge the genius's character, make an encounter that could be an actual threat, then the rest of the party was dead-meat. We hadn't min-maxed our characters as well, hadn't chosen the paths of power as effectively. If a fight started the genius would end it in one or two rounds. Didn't need our help. If he couldn't beat whatever the threat was instantaneously the rest of us were corpses. His character broke game balance for that game.

I ran an Aberrant game and the Spacial Manipulator with Mastery who requested the ability to create a new technique. He had Teleport as a technique for Spacial Mastery and wanted to make a technique in which he could track teleports. So if someone teleported away from him he wanted to be able to discern where they went. I realized right then that this would allow him and the party to track anyone who ran away via Warp or Teleport. Anyone. No one would have bases of operations he couldn't locate immedietely, no one could escape from a combat if it went bad using those tools. I ended up telling him no, because it would disturb the balance of the game. One side would have a huge advantage over the other.

Yes, as an ST I could simply stack the deck, do my best to negate that new technique. That feels like a disruption of game balance to me also. I'm the ST, I have the world at my fingertips and jacking things around in a forced way just to counter a character seems as unfair to me as having the previously mentioned character dominate the party.

[Singularity]

Well, this is a topic I would normally have a lot to say about. Unfortunately, I'm tired and I want to at least throw in my basic ideas while I can.

Game balance in and of itself is a subjective thing. None of us are going to have the same answer nor would we totally agree if we were all forced to use the same paradigm of game balance.

That said, when I think of game balance, I think about what PCs and NPCs are able to do. If a certain power or ability gives a character the ability to completely dominate a situation, then it's unbalancing. Honestly, how many of us remember just watching Mal and Pax duke it out for the enjoyment of the developers? Or just watching events unfold before you in the Transylvania Chronicles, simply being an observer for the big events that shaped the WoD? How about seeing a character use Haste from D&D 3.0, casting two spells a round because the spell was written poorly?

Game balance, in a nutshell, is about preventing games from being unreasonably one-sided. I've got a lot more to say about this, but we'll see how I feel tomorrow.

[kestrel404]

I've had a lot of experience with unbalanced games, and a fair amount with balanced games. I'm quite certain that a game being unbalanced does not make it any less fun in and of itself.

I've played in a campaign style game where one player WAS the universe we were in, another had created it, and where I was just a guy with magic. We all had fun, along with the other half dozen players. Heck, it's one of my favorite gaming experiences. The key here was that no single player dominated the game.

I think that's how we can define game balance. Everyone's responce so far has been centered around a single idea.

If one factor controls a game (or a major aspect of that game, like combat) to the exclusion of everything else, then the game is unbalanced. If the GM allows that factor to continue controlling the game, then it becomes less fun for the players not involved in that.

So it's not just game balance that makes a game unplayable, it's the exploitation of that imbalance by a player, with the GM allowing (or sometimes causing) it to happen.

[Jager]

It isn't a matter of powerlevels. Some ST/GM/DM's can do High Powered real well, others not so well.

Glenn made a good point in that there are two main elements to game balance. The players, and the -Master. If everyone works together, its tough not to have fun.

[Kane Knight]

This subject, in one sentence, summed up best:

,,

Quote:

Originally posted by Franklin 'Singularity' Alden:

Game balance in and of itself is a subjective thing.

I don't know what else to add.

Note that what we think of as game balance tends to radically differ from what the gaming companies think of as game balance.

[Singularity]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kane Knight:
This subject, in one sentence, summed up best:

Quote:

Originally posted by Franklin 'Singularity' Alden:
Game balance in and of itself is a subjective thing.

I don't know what else to add.

And they say law school isn't helping.

[Archon]

I think game balance is more geared toward balance between the players. so that the players don't feel completely useless when compared to someone elses character.

for example, I played in a DC Heroes game.

I was a generalist.. Stronger than your average bear, average combat ability, average appearce/charisma. Just average. compared to the other players, who could excel.

now, for the first 3 or 4 sessions, the game was incredibly unbalanced, not because I spent my points wrong, but because whatever we came up against, someone was always better than i was. i may be a distant second at best.

what balanced the game, was role-playing. I got appointed leader of the party, so that i got my fill of the role playing fun, by just playing the character.

i honestly don't think there are game-breaking powers, just game-breaking players. A player who has kept a character, and worked with him enough to earn Quantum Supremacy, by all means, let him have it. but remind him of how the character has probably changed through the process of getting it.

at that power, you probably won't concern yourself with the squabbles of "weaker" characters....

but now i'm rambling....i know what i mean, i just forgot how to say it.