Game Balance

[ElegaicRequiem]

I found this this morning, and it made me think.

johnwickpresents.com/games/game-designs/chess-is-not-an-rpg-the-illusion-of-game-balance/

I know in my game, we've all but abandoned dice rolling after getting to know the characters and the rules to the point that mostly, when we do roll, it's just to check how much we won by in order to fine-tune how we play the event out in the story. Our issue is more with scale to how characters balance to the environment, but... we're not playing CoC, so being overpowered is fun, too.

What are your thoughts on game balance?

[jenburdoo]

Interesting.

I've been using Tracy Hickman's XD20, which is so rules-light they've practically been thrown out the window. The DM makes all the gameplay decisions, which invariably boil down to "What do I have to roll on a D20?" Hickman's point is that no matter how many modifiers you use, you can't granularize it any further, and in that case you might as well just let the DM pick an appropriate number rather than waste your valuable time cross-referencing tables. The Roll To Dodge rules also appeal to me. They make it easier to introduce newbies to role-playing -- all they need to tell you is what they want their characters to do.

I like the article for its questions about how the rules help the players accomplish the mission of the game. It makes me look at games I like in a new light. Recon for instance -- do all the different weapons and equipment help get you into the mindset of a gritty Vietnam story? Maybe not, but the fast, furious and very deadly combat rules sure do.

[RedsandRoyals]

I think the author is focusing far too narrowly on the literal definition of the term 'Roleplaying" games, and missing the point about why people play them. Let me spin his example on it's head to show you what I mean. 40k and WFB are small scale tabletop combat games. You select armies, roll dice, remove casualties, and at the end of six turns, you have a winner. But people name soldiers, write backstories for their armies, and play narrative themed campaigns. Even GW invests massive mounts of time and effort (and writing of uneven quality) to fleshing out each faction's back story, alleged tactics, and general flavor. All this adds roleplaying elements to the game, but by Wick's logic, anyone who engages in these elements is playing the game wrong, even though they're encouraged to play this way. It's a combat game. Roleplaying has no place in it, so it should be thrown out.

But that doesn't seem right, does it? I think by focusing on the narrow definition of the name of the genre, he's missing the real point; Games are meant to be played so they can be enjoyed. RPG systems are an interesting because they offer a sort of toolbox that lets you have a lot of freedom in how you play the game, and how you tell, and of course interact with, a story. While they can offer all sorts of rules and gun lists and flavor, the real point is for the system to allow the GM to tell a game they'll enjoy running, and for players to take part in a game they'll enjoy playing. How they enjoy the game, and what makes them enthusiastic about it, can vary immensely. Maybe one person likes the setting. Maybe one person likes being able to be an armory nut and crunch stats, while still feeling the choice of what gun they take and how well they build their character can really impact the story. Some people just like being able to walk up to the baddest villain in the game's universe and kick them really hard in the particulars, and get away with it. Some players will enjoy a struggle, others will like being able to smash their way through the whole story with ease. Some GMs like designing intricate traps, combat encounters, and bosses tailored to the party's stats and weaknesses. Others couldn't care less, and want to tell a story with their players.

The entire point of the RPG is that the decision of how the game is played is put in the hands of the game master, and to a lesser extent, his players.

Lots of systems make a point in saying "Fun is is the first rule, and you shouldn't be afraid to change the game if you need to." They actively encourage players and GMs to bend the system and the setting to fit the game they want to play. If that means the gun list is becoming a problem an obstacle, sure, throw it out or add guns or streamline it or whatever. But if players become more involved because they can choose their weapons and customize them and the like, and the party is okay with it, sure, add more depth to the gun chart. Hell, weaponry details and mechanics can draw people further in to the story. To use Jen's Vietnam example, choosing weapons can help draw the players in to the setting. Are they going to Hue or defending Khe Sahn, where raw firepower in the form of M60s and M-79s are useful? Or are they clearing tunnels along the Mekong, so they want a small, but high powered weapon? These sorts of decisions can bring players closer in to the mindset of the story and the situation, when used properly by the GM. Of course you're going to get players who want to make the most powerful character they can, regardless of what the setting dictates. But there are also players who will roleplay so stubbornly they can actually wreck a story (lawful stupid characters are usually the main cause of this). Some people just want to play the game that way, and the GM can either choose to let them do it, boot them out of the group, or try to contain them so they don't wreck the story.

I'd also like to touch briefly on the concept of class balance. Back in my Sophomore year of college, someone I knew wanted to play a Star Wars RPG, and I said sure. When we started playing, I discovered I was only one of two party members who wasn't a Jedi or a Wookie or something. As a result, the other player and I sat back and watched as the rest of the party just demolished everything ever. Now, that game didn't balance particularly well between Jedi and other classes, at least at low levels. By the Star Wars universe, that was fine, since Jedi are kind of supposed to be OP. But it made the game supremely unfun for the other PC and I, since we were effectively rendered useless, even though we were playing the classes we wanted to play, because we were interested in the background and story of "normal' humans in Star Wars, much like the friend the article's author mentioned who wore outdated armor because they liked the look of it. So, by his definition, we were playing the game right. But it wasn't fun. Balance serves a key purpose in making sure people can play the classes they want, and still enjoy playing the game. Granted, a large part of that is on the GM to try and design an inclusive story, and players need to put some effort in to making sure their builds aren't utterly useless, but having balance mechanics built right in to the system can help immensely, and can reign in players who want to be the most powerful powerfulness to ever power.

I think the author is right in defining what a ROLEplaying game is, but maybe that label is, in and of itself, incorrect. Maybe we should think of RPGs as toolkits that let the GM and the party play how they want. If that's telling a story, fine. If it's playing a game, fine. If it's a bit of both, fine.

Tl;dr: You're playing your RPG right if the GM and the group are enjoying it. That's all that matters.

[Casiarius]

The tea cup and thumb combat sequences remind me of Clive Owen's character in Shoot 'Em Up, who kills people with carrots if he doesn't have a gun handy.

I disagree with the author on so many points that I really don't have the time to write a comprehensive response. RedsandRoyals has covered many of the points I would have mentioned anyway.

I would just say that role-playing games mean different things to different people. This is what the GNS Theory was trying to explain with its Gamist, Narrativist and Simulationist aspects of role-playing. The people who scream "OMG! You picked up a dice and consulted a table! That's not Role Playing!!!" are trying to make role-playing games in to something they have never been from the very beginning. If they want to sit around and tell stories without and rules or dice, that's great, just don't insist that's what the only way to role-play.

[RedsandRoyals]

Oct 15, 2014 12:54:21 GMT -5 Casiarius said:

I would just say that role-playing games mean different things to different people. This is what the GNS Theory was trying to explain with its Gamist, Narrativist and Simulationist aspects of role-playing. The people who scream "OMG! You picked up a dice and consulted a table! That's not Role Playing!!!" are trying to make role-playing games in to something they have never been from the very beginning. If they want to sit around and tell stories without and rules or dice, that's great, just don't insist that's what the only way to role-play.

This.

I think it's also worth mentioning that the author has forgotten that the words 'Role Playing" are followed by the word "Game". Roleplay is essentially team-based story telling, but by making a game out of it, you add dice, mechanics, etc. How many or how few mechanics are added is up to the game developer, just like the decision about using them is up to the GM.

[ElegaicRequiem]

These sorts of counterpoints are exactly what I wanted. He does come off a bit harsh on the crunch of these games, but is it so wrong to play a board game with a plot? I think his perspective as a game designer heavily colors his opinion and verbiage there. 

I think what it boils down to the most is: is your GM trying to craft a world in which you can play as someone else, or are you being forced to roll dice when you feel that your character is justified in just being able to do an action?

[Casiarius]

If he wants to design games that are just story telling sessions in which no dice are rolled and no rules consulted, that's fine. I'm sure there are people who will enjoy that sort of game. Unfortunately, he comes off as saying that he knows what true role-playing is, and everyone else is doing it wrong.
He has since posted Chess is Not an RPG: A Quick Follow Up in which he says he just meant this to be a rough draft and not his most articulate manifesto. Though he does not actually back off from calling everyone who likes crunchy rules a pack of mouth-breathing WoW players.

I did give in to the urge to write a self-indulgent response to the "most important" part of his blog post:

John Wick said:

More important question. In fact, perhaps the most important question: how do any of those things–range modifiers, rate of fire, rburst fire, slashing, piercing, etc.–help you tell stories?

Just a moment ago, I called weapon lists one of the most common features in roleplaying games. These things are not features. They’re bugs. And it’s time to get rid of them.

When I make an RPG character, I'm addicted to detail. I don't ever want a character who just points his generic gun or swings his generic sword at a target and rolls a D20. My characters have very specific weapons and fighting styles, and they have specific reasons for the tactical choices they make. That's part of my story telling and part of what makes my character come alive as an individual, even if combat is not a big focus of the game. And I expect the mechanics of the game to support me with rules that make these choices meaningful. If a D&D 3.0 or 3.5 character was a pacifist and preferred to trip or disarm people rather than killing them in combat, they could choose a weapon (from that hated weapon list) that was suitable for that task, and the rules would back them up. That's good game design, not a bug.

A person I know in real life used to be an armored car guard. Hollywood likes to portray armored car robberies involving roadblocks, high explosives and the robbers getting away with all the millions in the truck. In reality, what a guard needs to watch out for is someone running up behind him, grabbing his gun from its holster and shooting him in the back while he's carrying bags of cash back to the truck. Because this is a real scenario that plays out every few years, it was one of the factors that led him to carry a Beretta 92F as his sidearm. The Beretta's slide-mounted safety lever is unusual and may confuse people who have little familiarity with actual guns, buying precious seconds. Details like this are exactly what a character should have, and they can, unless the GM decides to dumb down the game because he alone understands real role-playing.

Weapons and combat can be an opportunity for characterization and storytelling. If you just gloss over these critical matters of life and death so you can do more talking, I submit that your game is weaker for it.

[Rolling Thunder]

False dichotomy is false.

[Adkenpachi]

Oct 15, 2014 10:03:13 GMT -5 RedsandRoyals said:

Tl;dr: You're playing your RPG right if the GM and the group are enjoying it. That's all that matters.

This should have been the end of the conversation.

[Rolling Thunder]

Oct 16, 2014 0:31:00 GMT -5 Casiarius said:

If he wants to design games that are just story telling sessions in which no dice are rolled and no rules consulted, that's fine. I'm sure there are people who will enjoy that sort of game. Unfortunately, he comes off as saying that he knows what true role-playing is, and everyone else is doing it wrong.
He has since posted Chess is Not an RPG: A Quick Follow Up in which he says he just meant this to be a rough draft and not his most articulate manifesto. Though he does not actually back off from calling everyone who likes crunchy rules a pack of mouth-breathing WoW players.

I did give in to the urge to write a self-indulgent response to the "most important" part of his blog post:

John Wick said:

More important question. In fact, perhaps the most important question: how do any of those things–range modifiers, rate of fire, rburst fire, slashing, piercing, etc.–help you tell stories?

Just a moment ago, I called weapon lists one of the most common features in roleplaying games. These things are not features. They’re bugs. And it’s time to get rid of them.

When I make an RPG character, I'm addicted to detail. I don't ever want a character who just points his generic gun or swings his generic sword at a target and rolls a D20. My characters have very specific weapons and fighting styles, and they have specific reasons for the tactical choices they make. That's part of my story telling and part of what makes my character come alive as an individual, even if combat is not a big focus of the game. And I expect the mechanics of the game to support me with rules that make these choices meaningful. If a D&D 3.0 or 3.5 character was a pacifist and preferred to trip or disarm people rather than killing them in combat, they could choose a weapon (from that hated weapon list) that was suitable for that task, and the rules would back them up. That's good game design, not a bug.

A person I know in real life used to be an armored car guard. Hollywood likes to portray armored car robberies involving roadblocks, high explosives and the robbers getting away with all the millions in the truck. In reality, what a guard needs to watch out for is someone running up behind him, grabbing his gun from its holster and shooting him in the back while he's carrying bags of cash back to the truck. Because this is a real scenario that plays out every few years, it was one of the factors that led him to carry a Beretta 92F as his sidearm. The Beretta's slide-mounted safety lever is unusual and may confuse people who have little familiarity with actual guns, buying precious seconds. Details like this are exactly what a character should have, and they can, unless the GM decides to dumb down the game because he alone understands real role-playing.

Weapons and combat can be an opportunity for characterization and storytelling. If you just gloss over these critical matters of life and death so you can do more talking, I submit that your game is weaker for it.

Except 3.5 is crap, has a crap combat system and operates under the belief that a greatsword is superior to a fornicateing halberd in raw damage terms.
The entire chess is not roleplaying is painful to read.

The rules system is not there to help you act. It's there to provide you a framework to act in.

[Paimon]

There is a huge stylistic difference between a melee fighter that uses a 'death of a thousand cuts' with dual daggers, from a melee fighter that uses the biggest weapon they can lift and crushes their enemies in a single blow. According to this guy the DM should be inventing how this works on the spot, having success be based entirely on the whim of the DM rather than a prearranged rule set that everyone already knows and understands. Because ROLEPLAYING. The whole point of the systems put in place is so that we can play a character that is good or bad at things, often things that are different from our own skill set. His disdain for people who want to play high charisma characters who aren't good at being charismatic is ridiculous, it's like restricting someone from playing a Wizard because they can't do any card tricks. LARP is a thing that is fun, and one of the reasons it's fun is that personal ability adds to character effectiveness, but table top RPGs are not LARPs, and so systems should be in place to facilitate players in doing what they want to do rather than what they can do.

As for Greatswords doing more damage than Halberds, and similar simulation problems with various RPGs, consider this: Greatswords are the counter to polarms, they break up the pole formations and cut the heads off of the pole weapons. Similarly, a halberd has a pretty small striking surface that would be more damaging than a Greatsword, and steping into a downward swing can easily see the defender hit by the pole rather than the axehead. If you want to make things more complex you could have a system where a halberd does spear damage when thrusting, great axe damage when chopping, and quarterstaff damage if they don't beat the target's AC by more than some threshold (but only when chopping).

[Casiarius]

Dec 8, 2014 18:07:37 GMT -5 Rolling Thunder said:

Except 3.5 is crap, has a crap combat system and operates under the belief that a greatsword is superior to a fornicateing halberd in raw damage terms.

D&D 3.5 did suffer from being based on crude 1970's game mechanics, but its crappiness in no way invalidates my example. More detailed rules, including weapon tables, can enrich and enhance a role-playing game, at least for players who value accurate and consistent simulation as part of their storytelling.

Dec 8, 2014 19:01:37 GMT -5 Paimon said:

According to this guy the DM should be inventing how this works on the spot, having success be based entirely on the whim of the DM rather than a prearranged rule set that everyone already knows and understands.

This is why I have trouble playing in very narrativist groups that enjoy White Wolf games, for example. When the GM makes things up on the fly and then reverses himself whenever he thinks it will serve the story, players can't tell how the game works or what their characters can really do. They can only beg the GM to approve their actions and let them work.

When a Shadowrun book comes out that's nothing but charts and stats on guns, I love that stuff and it makes the game more fun, at least for my friends and I. It seems like the 40K crowd is pretty uniformly in that camp. I can't really recall anyone I know of who loves White Wolf-style narrativist RPGs AND wargames.

[Paimon]

I like the Whitewolf games too, but it requires creativity to do anything interesting, and a specific kind of GM, specifically one who is good at 'Yes but...'. I prefer games where I know how likely I am to succeed or fail at attempting something, and know whether attempting something is even worth it.

[Rolling Thunder]

Games should be balanced. A sword should not do more damage because a Paladin/Fighter/CAPTAIN SPACE swung it. Rifle bullets should not hit harder because they're being used by child soldiers.


I also expect my obsessive knowledge of tactics from 300BC onwards to be rewarded.

[ElegaicRequiem]

Rifle bullets should do more damage when they're swung by CAPTAIN SPACE.

[Rolling Thunder]

SPACE MCQUIRK.