PDA

View Full Version : Ways to Screw Up Balance



UglyPanda
2010-02-03, 03:39 PM
What are some of the ways you've found companies to screw up game balance and some common pitfalls?
Please, do not say specific systems.

Low impact flaws - When a flaw that usually doesn't come up often or is easily overcome happens to give character creation points.

Uncommon style playtesting - The playtesters were clearly playing in a way that an ordinary person wouldn't play or that they assumed everyone would play.

Rock flies through paper - The game is supposed to be balanced by Tactical Rock Paper Scissors (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TacticalRockPaperScissors). Too bad paper can't do its job right.

Epic-level janitors - When a joke class or profession is made and the writers didn't let anyone in on it.

Almighty janitor - When the developers overcompensate for said joke class in a splat book.

All-powerful snowflakes - When a gamebreaker character option is supposed to be balanced by the GM restricting its availability. Said character proceeds to make everyone cry.

Overly open to interpretation - When a rule or two is open enough to interpretation that it only ever benefits the fastest talker at the table.

JaronK
2010-02-03, 03:43 PM
They wouldn't dare: When unbalanced options are allowed because the designers are sure the players wouldn't actually use them.

For my eyes only: When unbalanced options are created for use by the DM, but they're actually available to the players.

Those two are closely related.

JaronK

magic9mushroom
2010-02-03, 03:57 PM
Stun Lock: When some characters are capable of rendering others completely helpless while they can act freely.

lsfreak
2010-02-03, 04:08 PM
Rocket Tag: Combat comes down to who goes first, and there is little way to influence the outcome of battle beyond merely going first.

Immunity or Death: Things get to the point where either you are immune to an attack, or it kills you outright, with little in-between (or, more generally, lacking a specific defense renders you helpless). In addition to all the problems of rocket tag, you add the problem that often the characters manage to survive but still can't do anything to influence a battle.

Ormagoden
2010-02-03, 04:11 PM
Too many heads When too many different people write splat books and don't consider options in other splat books written by other people.

The sacred cow When the developers obviously favor one class or race as their favorite and give it more development time then other classes or races.

Feature lock When additional features or entire new ways of using already existing character options are introduced rendering all previous options/features obsolete.

At the wheel When new fiction is written about the game and the developers attempt to match the "new audience" and throw away old well loved game-play or character options.

JaronK
2010-02-03, 04:13 PM
Rocket Tag: Combat comes down to who goes first, and there is little way to influence the outcome of battle beyond merely going first.

Actually, this doesn't destroy balance at all, you just have to design for it. Shadowrun 3E is definitely rocket tag (a basic ganger with a high powered rifle could kill you if he got the drop on you), but it's still fun and balanced.

JaronK

Tyndmyr
2010-02-03, 04:18 PM
Recursion Designers fail to think about how combos can be used repeatedly, and the eventual results of doing so.

Realism In the pursuit of verisimulatude, designers sometimes fall into the trap of attempting to model things realistically because they have a real-world analog, resulting in such things matching up poorly against other options without such a comparison.

lsfreak
2010-02-03, 04:23 PM
Okay, I can give you that. But when the system isn't designed around being rocket tag, but ends up as it, it destroys the system.

Identity Crisis: It's a well-written (or at least interesting) option for the players, but it goes against the design of the rest of the system. It emphasizes all the wrong things, such as being a jack-of-all-trades in a game that punishes non-specialization, or avoiding combat in a system that's built entirely around it.

The Unthinking Editor: The author designs a gameplay option. The editor or publisher leaves out a crucial part of the option, or alters it without consideration. Results range from nonsensical, underpowered options to hilariously overpowered ones.

Ormagoden
2010-02-03, 04:24 PM
Actually, this doesn't destroy balance at all, you just have to design for it. Shadowrun 3E is definitely rocket tag (a basic ganger with a high powered rifle could kill you if he got the drop on you), but it's still fun and balanced.

JaronK

SR3 is far from the rocket tag described above. Going first has the advantage in any system but characters should always be able to effect the combat if they aren't going first. I believe the point of "rocket tag" is that the system shouldn't be "Go first or die/lose".

Tyndmyr
2010-02-03, 04:31 PM
Let the players sort out our mistakes - Rules such as d6ing to settle differences of opinion simply mean that whoever is the most opinionated, regardless of the ridiculousness involved, statistically gets the most advantage. *cough* Games workshop.

Tengu_temp
2010-02-03, 04:35 PM
Slow Start Option - when some classes/options are intentionally weaker at low levels, but make up for it by being much stronger than the alternatives once you gain enough experience.

Koury
2010-02-03, 04:38 PM
OVER 9000! Designers fail to think about how combos can be used repeatedly, and the eventual results of doing so.

Fixed :smallbiggrin:

JaronK
2010-02-03, 05:02 PM
SR3 is far from the rocket tag described above. Going first has the advantage in any system but characters should always be able to effect the combat if they aren't going first. I believe the point of "rocket tag" is that the system shouldn't be "Go first or die/lose".

I dunno, from what I've seen if you go first in SR3, you win. If you're hiding and spot the enemy, then spend a few rounds aiming, and finally take the shot without them seeing you, they're almost certainly dead no matter who they are. Consider a basic gangland sniper, Rifles 4, with a cheap hunting rifle (the one that does 9S) with Smartlink 2. That's a really basic enemy using very basic gear. If he aims for two rounds and fires at a pumped up super powerful PC, he's rolling 8 dice with a target number 2 while doing a called shot to bypass armor. Average case he gets 7 successes, and the PC can't dodge (due to not knowing what's happening) and must roll body+combat pool against a target number 9. If he gets less than 6 successes on that (he'll probably average 1 or 2) he's taken a deadly wound ... and the ganger gets a second shot before anyone else can act. That's basic rocket tag, when a low level mook can kill even the toughest enemy just by hiding and then going first.

JaronK

ericgrau
2010-02-03, 05:11 PM
Turn to page 179 silly. When critical options for your class, or other rules, are deeply embedded within another book, in the middle of 100 other rules, with no reference to them whatsoever. This is my main gripe, really. The rest I work around a bit better... once I find the rules for it and pull some tricks.

Reaper_Monkey
2010-02-03, 05:11 PM
Rule Noise: When the shear quantity of rules or ways in which those rules interacts causes players to either ignore half of them or simply forget/overlook key aspects of the rules.

The Dupe Option: Where balance is perceived to be maintained due to underpar options being made available, regardless of the fact that anyone who actually understands the game will avoid these options like the plague. Also known as the The Noob Choice or Flavour Over Function Failure.

Rewards For Winning: Where a purely endgame feature completely breaks the game by rendering several rules moot or providing players with reusable "I Win" buttons. Also covers Designergasms: where the designer thought something was so cool and so unlikely to be obtained that it's power wasn't correctly balanced to the rest of the game, and then allowed it to be readily accessible anyway.

Tinydwarfman
2010-02-03, 07:12 PM
Exponential Abilities
When designers fail to realize that player WILL exploit poorly written extrapolation rules.
(see: M.U.N.C.H.K.I.N.) Munchkin's Universe-shaking Nondirectional
Cosmic Hyperluminal Kinetoelectromagnetic
Interference Neurodisrupter (M.U.N.C.H.K.I.N.)
(+5190%): Toxic Attack 1 point (Affects
Insubstantial, +20%; Area Effect,
2475880078570760549798248448 yards (about 74
gigaparsecs), +4550%; Cosmic, Irresistible attack,
+300%; Emanation, -20%; Rapid Fire, RoF 300,
+300%; Selective Area, +20%; Underwater, +20%)
[53].
Notes: It's a cosmic attack, literally. Pulses of cosmic
energy that radiate from the attacker (reaching 74
gigaparsecs in a flat second) burn out the neural
system of living beings in the affected area, and
remember that even the edge of our universe is
"merely" about 10 gigaparsecs away from Earth. Also
note that an Area Effect attack with Emanation
involves no to-hit roll and simply affects anyone in
the area. Furthermore, it allows victims only to dive
for cover, and actually there's no effective cover since
this Cosmic, Irresistible attack ignores DR. In
conclusion, the user can attack every living thing in
our entire universe, with 1 point of damage, 300
times per second. Have fun. 53 points.
Modifying: To kill nonliving foes as well, and to
breach Cosmic or Hardened DR, define the attack as
"Munchkin's ... Disintegrator" (M.U.N.C.H.K.I.D.),
by changing the underlying Toxic Attack to
Corrosion Attack. This will gradually defeat any
amount of DR. M.U.N.C.H.K.I.D. costs 159 points
because of the base cost 3 of Corrosion Attack 1 point.
Submitted by Gurps Fan.

Tom Foolery
2010-02-03, 08:49 PM
The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Poorer:This happens when some classes get new and creative options every new level while other other lose option due to having to specialize.

Poor Man's X: This is when a class's abilities is always second best to other classes of the same role.

Kicking A Class When He's Down: This is like the above but where it's a class not of the same role that is better at the classes role then it is.

Zaq
2010-02-04, 02:08 AM
I Am Not What I Am: The classes, archetypes, power sets, options, or whatever were designed with clear roles in mind. Unfortunately, those roles either don't actually fit into the system, or simply aren't covered by the intended options. A related problem is when an option set which is not intended for a certain role takes over that role anyway.

The GM Will Handle It: One ability is left far more open-ended than other, similar abilities, with a half-hearted clause about "GM adjudication" thrown in. Some GMs are as good at balance as (we like to hope that) designers are. Some are not.

Ignore It, It's Just... Wait, What? It's ambiguous where the fluff ends and the crunch begins. There are many levels of this, but it always comes down to "well, that's what the book says, but what do the rules say?"

He Deserves It More Than You: Anything which intentionally puts characters on a significantly different power level for an extended period of time. Can be uneven rates of advancement, suggested penalties for character death, or one of many other forms. Related to Slow Start Option mentioned above.

You Should Have Thought of That a Long Time Ago: When early character decisions can doom a character's effectiveness and/or fun quotient for a long time, with little or no recourse in the as-written rules.

We Encourage Adversity: Any system which actively rewards the GM for harming or killing the players. Almost inevitably invites power trips, adversarial mentality, and a loss of fun.

All-or-Nothing Player Bone: When an option, either a tactic used by an enemy or a flaw voluntarily undertaken by a player, risks totally demolishing a character and/or their effectiveness, or else does nothing noticeable, with no middle ground. The option is either unnoticed or overwhelming.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-04, 02:19 AM
Knife Edge: When a fight either goes one way or the other, no middle ground. Whoever wins does so with little cost to themselves. An inevitable result of Stun Lock but can occur without it as well.

ZeroNumerous
2010-02-04, 02:35 AM
Knife Edge: When a fight either goes one way or the other, no middle ground. Whoever wins does so with little cost to themselves. An inevitable result of Stun Lock but can occur without it as well.

In relation to this: Blade's Edge: When every fight goes to the wire, death is frequent and often arbitrary, and no one survives longer than two engagements. Inevitably leads to everyone playing the most survivable class and taking the options that increase survival rates while discarding everything else.

Rixx
2010-02-04, 02:39 AM
Well, if it's powerful, that means it's worth money. - Expanded material is higher-powered as an incentive to buy it.

Balance? We need a splatbook by Monday! - Designers hastily design material to meet harsh deadlines without regarding game balance.

Lead designer credits: Intern, Intern, and hobo who lives behind the office - Too many authors are given "canon" authority to write official material with little to no policy on what they can put out.

You got variant rules in my expanded material! You got expanded material in my variant rules! - Many different kinds of new content are developed for the system with no regard to how they might interact.

Game system repair service, only 49.99! - The company fixes or rebalances the system by releasing yet another book you have to buy.

Edge of Dreams
2010-02-04, 02:49 AM
The Same but MORE - Whether intentional or not, an option is printed that is identical to another option, but BETTER.

N different ways to do X - Not realizing a particular option already exists, an author adds it in his splatbook. The result is that a player can pick up multiple copies of the same ability/buff/power and have them stack just because "technically" they have different names.

pasko77
2010-02-04, 03:15 AM
Stun Lock: When some characters are capable of rendering others completely helpless while they can act freely.

Actually a Stun lock is effective even if it also locks your Character. While you lock the boss you can have your mates finish him.

Edge of Dreams
2010-02-04, 03:58 AM
Stun Lock

There's really two main issues with stun locks:
1) If a character can completely prevent all of a target's actions while still dealing even a minimal rate of damage to the target, that character can win almost any 1-on-1 fight.

2) If a character can completely prevent all of a target's actions, even though that target is supposed to be equivalent to more than one character, it renders many-on-1 fights absolutely trivial.

The first may not be a big issue. In 4e, for example, a single-target stun-lock build isn't *too* bad in the usual 5-on-5 fights, because that one character is occupying his time dealing with 1 enemy, leaving everyone else to deal with 4-on-4. Where it becomes a real balance problem is type 2, i.e. a party of 5 against a solo.

Other systems may allow stun-locking at the cost of damage output or other such trade-offs. It definitely has the potential to cause balance issues, but it is not necessarily a game imbalance in and of itself.

Ogremindes
2010-02-04, 04:15 AM
Rules such as d6ing to settle differences of opinion simply mean that whoever is the most opinionated, regardless of the ridiculousness involved, statistically gets the most advantage. *cough* Games workshop.

That's not a rule, per se, in the Warhammer games. Just a suggestion for keeping the flow of the game going in friendly games.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-04, 04:19 AM
There's really two main issues with stun locks:
1) If a character can completely prevent all of a target's actions while still dealing even a minimal rate of damage to the target, that character can win almost any 1-on-1 fight.

2) If a character can completely prevent all of a target's actions, even though that target is supposed to be equivalent to more than one character, it renders many-on-1 fights absolutely trivial.

The first may not be a big issue. In 4e, for example, a single-target stun-lock build isn't *too* bad in the usual 5-on-5 fights, because that one character is occupying his time dealing with 1 enemy, leaving everyone else to deal with 4-on-4. Where it becomes a real balance problem is type 2, i.e. a party of 5 against a solo.

Other systems may allow stun-locking at the cost of damage output or other such trade-offs. It definitely has the potential to cause balance issues, but it is not necessarily a game imbalance in and of itself.

I was also referring to things like 3e Time Stop or sufficiently cheesed Quickened Color Spray. Multi-target stunlocks are ALWAYS game-breaking.

oxinabox
2010-02-04, 04:56 AM
Short, but Violent (Hit hard Die Young):
A related phenonmon to gun tag
as [N]PC's increase in power there damage increases, but there stamina stays the same. Eventaully powerful enemies can take out thePC's in one hit, and the PC's can do likewise.
this resualts in Gun Tag at higher levals, even where it didn't exist at lower ones

It's caused by realism - a human really don'tn't gain much more ability to take damages with training/experience. he does get much better at dishing it out though (learns to be more accurate say)

Sergeantbrother
2010-02-04, 05:04 AM
The Unusable Drawback - When there is some supposed drawback or flaw that is so negative or crippling that it is completely ignored and results in the character becoming overpowered. The thing I think of most for this are the level limits for non-humans in 1st and 2nd edition AD&D

Reaper_Monkey
2010-02-04, 05:51 AM
The Unusable Drawback See also The Flavoured Drawback

The Flavoured Drawback: When there is some drawback or flaw that is only included because it makes sense due to the style and flavour of that which possesses it. Specifically when this drawback is included without any care as to how that pigeon holes the options available and often without balancing it with other desirable features. See also Damned Knight's Code and The Inevitably Fallen Paladin.

Zen Master
2010-02-04, 06:17 AM
I dunno, from what I've seen if you go first in SR3, you win. If you're hiding and spot the enemy, then spend a few rounds aiming, and finally take the shot without them seeing you, they're almost certainly dead no matter who they are. Consider a basic gangland sniper, Rifles 4, with a cheap hunting rifle (the one that does 9S) with Smartlink 2. That's a really basic enemy using very basic gear. If he aims for two rounds and fires at a pumped up super powerful PC, he's rolling 8 dice with a target number 2 while doing a called shot to bypass armor. Average case he gets 7 successes, and the PC can't dodge (due to not knowing what's happening) and must roll body+combat pool against a target number 9. If he gets less than 6 successes on that (he'll probably average 1 or 2) he's taken a deadly wound ... and the ganger gets a second shot before anyone else can act. That's basic rocket tag, when a low level mook can kill even the toughest enemy just by hiding and then going first.

JaronK

Off Topic, since this thread isn't about SR3: You are making several assumptions here. The two primary ones being that a basic grunt has the ability to hide unseen while aiming at the party for several rounds while they are stationary and do not detect him - and that an aimed shot actually allows him to bypass armor (while sounding reasonable, that isn't actually covered by the rules - and if you chose to go with that, what you basically achieve is to force everyone to wear helmets, and reduce pretty much all armor values to ... is it 2?).

Also, there are some assumptions about the level of training and gear available to the basic slumland ganger.

In my book, the basic grunt will make mistakes. He will hide in some substandard place, where lens flare allows the players to roll perception prior to his shot. He also will be nervous, and fail to wait for the required two rounds before firing. Either that - or I'm failing as a GM, because snipers are basically equal to 'rocks fall - everyone dies.'

potatocubed
2010-02-04, 06:51 AM
Built on Sand: A quality of an RPG system that requires inter-character balance to be playable. It'll stand up for a while, but its collapse is inevitable.

Built on a Box of Chocolates: A quality of an RPG system that requires extensive GM intervention to be balanced. You never know what you're going to get.

The Meta-Mistake: The first step on the road to all problems is to design an RPG system.

Kurald Galain
2010-02-04, 07:18 AM
Low impact flaws
This is the big one: drawbacks that aren't. This goes for both actual negative traits ("flaws") as well as for positive traits that have a negative side to them. I would split it into four options, possibly more:
(1) rare drawbacks. You are allergic to ostriches, and are unlikely to ever see one.
(2) drawbacks that aren't your role. You are very bad at swordfighting, which will come up frequently. However, you are a caster and have an ally that does the swordplay for you.
(3) drawbacks in fluff. You gain cool power X, but society will hate you. However, you might not actually care that society hates you.
(4) drawbacks that sound impressive ("you anger the gods and will fail in combat!") but turn out to be fairly minor (e.g. you only get a -2 to your next attack).

Additional ones,

Did Not Do The Math. Surprisingly common. The designers did not notice that multiplying certain percentages gave ridiculous results. This results in such things as critical hits happening once per year, or a high likelihood for characters to die during character generation.

The Cautious Approach. Very common, usually as an overreaction to claims that something was overpowered in earlier books. In an attempt to make option X not too powerful, they pile up so many restrictions that option X becomes poor or nigh-unusable.

Oberoni Fallacy. Yes, designers make that mistake, too. This power is not a problem because the DM can limit its usage. It depends on the system how much of a problem this is.

Those Who Fail To Learn History. Assuming earlier design is good, and making assumptions from that. For instance, it is fine if the pyromancer from the first rulebook is the best damaging caster class, and all subsequent caster classes are deliberately made less damaging than that. This, however, becomes problematic if the initial pyromancer isn't actually all that hot (heh), because it ensures that all subsequent classes are also sub-par.

Stealth Errata. Related to the above; "fixing" problems in earlier builds/powers/traits whatever by printing newer traits (and such) that are strictly better, or that are mandatory for making a certain class work.

Lack of Precedence Rules. If rule X and rule Y conflict, which of the two takes precedence? Some players will undoubtedly argue for "whichever gives the most pluses", even when that clearly wasn't the design intent, because the rules don't actually say so.

Restrictions That Aren't. Power X is meant for class Y only. However, the power doesn't actually say so, and in fact has as prerequisite feature Z, which is a feature of class Y but can also be obtained through other means.

Clarify the intent. Paragraphs of non-rule prose that explain the reason behind a rule help against the above two, but are pretty uncommon.



Realism In the pursuit of verisimulatude, designers sometimes fall into the trap of attempting to model things realistically because they have a real-world analog,
Related: Unrealism. In the pursuit of verisimilitude, designers sometimes attempt to model things according to how they think the real world works, when in fact it doesn't. For instance, yes, there is a difference between a Dennis-The-Menace sling, and a military sling.

Altair_the_Vexed
2010-02-04, 07:55 AM
Moar Clases! Moar Raices!!! - new races and classes, with ever increasing coool features, are added every time a designer blows their nose.
Without considering all of them at once, there are inevitiably exploitable unbalanced builds.

(Bad spelling intentional.)

Reaper_Monkey
2010-02-04, 08:10 AM
Shallow Selective Depth Dominance: When a game has variable depth to specific areas within the rules, such as extensive combat rules but minimal social interaction rules. Whichever area which has significantly less variance in rules will tend to be substantially more powerful, even if less used. This is notably unbalancing when this area can override the requirement to do anything else, such as convincing other people to fight for you so you don't have to.



Realism In the pursuit of verisimulatude, designers sometimes fall into the trap of attempting to model things realistically because they have a real-world analog, resulting in such things matching up poorly against other options without such a comparison.
Related: Unrealism. In the pursuit of verisimilitude, designers sometimes attempt to model things according to how they think the real world works, when in fact it doesn't. For instance, yes, there is a difference between a Dennis-The-Menace sling, and a military sling.

Related: Too True To Life: In an attempt to hold true to the original sources of the trope the game is built around the designers research and mimic reality perfectly within the rules. However, the tropes source turns out to have been over a significant period of history with several technological revolutions which the trope overlooks and underplays, and includes several elements which just never existed in history. As such the game is obviously unbalanced or at the very least has significantly underpar options sprinkled throughout the rules.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-04, 08:48 AM
Flat Out Denial: When the designers continually insist that something is balanced despite Olympus Mons-sized piles of evidence to the contrary. Saying that something is balanced does not make it balanced, and holding a viewpoint in the face of proof to the contrary is just about the textbook definition of irrationality.

Nich_Critic
2010-02-04, 09:09 AM
Action inflation: Anything that gives extra actions tends to hurt balance. Simply put, if you have X options per action, giving another action gives twice as many options.

Indon
2010-02-04, 09:17 AM
The Kill Level (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KillScreen): When a game can theoretically be played past a certain point, but is not designed to be played past a certain point. Support for play at this level is generally tenuous to nonexistent.

Nintendo Hard Challenges (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NintendoHard): When a game features challenges or player weaknesses which disproportionately impair players, and in particular require specific premeditated countermeasures to bypass.

Jayabalard
2010-02-04, 09:22 AM
Uncommon style playtesting - The playtesters were clearly playing in a way that an ordinary person wouldn't play or that they assumed everyone would play.I don't think this one is actually the issue for any system.

The problem is generally:
Design driven Playtesting : playing the game how it was designed to work rather than how it actually works.

So, for example, a particular class was designed to be played a particular way, and when it's played that way it's fairly balanced; but if you look at X, Y and Z class features, and put them together in a particular way, it becomes wildly unbalanced. Once people figure out how to combine X, Y and Z, most people go with that play style, and the initially intended style is now hardly used.

Sliver
2010-02-04, 09:23 AM
Action inflation: Anything that gives extra actions tends to hurt balance. Simply put, if you have X options per action, giving another action gives twice as many options.

*mumbles*You will end up with X^2 options, so it adds X^2-X options*mumbles

:smallamused:

Ormagoden
2010-02-04, 10:20 AM
Consider a basic gangland sniper, Rifles 4, with a cheap hunting rifle (the one that does 9S) with Smartlink 2. That's a really basic enemy using very basic gear.

None of the items you mention are basic gear for a ganger.
Rifles 4 is not a skill you see a ganger with.


Take aim is a simple action that you can take up to a number of times equal to 1/2 your skill in the weapon you are using. Which means using your example even at max its only -2 to the target number for the attack I'll even add an additional -2 for the smart link (even though your average ganger can't afford a smartlink.) So far -4 to target number.

Lets assume their target is on the street at night walking at about medium range. Any smart sniper doesn't want to start close. That's partial lighting and a +2 modifier. Medium range is a target number of 5. So your gangers target number is 3. He rolls 4 dice (since he can't use pool because he aimed) and gets an average result of 2 hits.

The target, a shadowrunner now has to resist 9S damage. Lets assume the target is Human McHuman a street sam. He has body 6 and a lined coat on (B4 I2). The player rolls 4 combat pool dice to attempt to dodge at a target number of 4 (no modifiers) Average result is 1.9 so well say they get 2 successes. That's not enough to dodge but that's 2 successes they add to their damage resistance check which is next.

9S damage is coming the street samurai's way. Using the armor the street sam is wearing reduces the target number for defense to a 5 (9-4=5) With 6 body and 1 combat pool left the sam rolls 7 dice with target number 5. Lets again assume an average result of 3 successes. So in total the attacker has 2 successes and the defender has 5 successes. (3 +2 dodge success)

The defender wins and gets to stage the damage once for ever 2 successes over the attacker they have. So they stage down a Serious wound to a Medium wound. This is the result you would get with a well above average gangland sniper and a average Newbie street sam.

The results for an average ganger and and the average street sam would end much more in the favor of the sam if the ganger was a equipped with a light or heavy pistol like he should be.

And now that I have totally digressed into defense of shadowrun...

[\rant] [\derail]

Nich_Critic
2010-02-04, 12:02 PM
*mumbles*You will end up with X^2 options, so it adds X^2-X options*mumbles

:smallamused:

Your superior math only serves to reinforce my point. :smallamused:

Roderick_BR
2010-02-04, 12:18 PM
There seems to have an misunderstanding about what gun tag may mean in rpgs. Lemme see if I can explain it.
In a game where firearms are common, and people tend to die easily from wounds caused by such weapons, the game's play style will focus on this kind of action: People will avoid staying in plain sight, will try not to be easy targets, will sneak more often, etc. Something like a spyonage game, for example, where battles are supposed to be avoided, and when they happen, they end quickly. It doesn't need to be only about firearms, really, could be any game where wounds are "realistic", and you won't fight every thief you meet, because a lucky dagger stab may kill you.
Whoever, in games where combat should be more dramatic, and last longer, battles that have little to no variation may cause problems.
Example: your warrior draws his sword and attacks an orc wielding his axe. You two have the same average hit points, hit each other almost as often, and deals almost the same damage. Lets say that you're very likely to kill it in 5 hits, and he is very likely to kill you in 5 hits. Whoever strikes the 5th time first will win. The problem is when there's little options in game other than "I attack him" and the response "I attack him back.", with little options, other than who attacks first, and/or the ocasional miss or critical hit.
For those that play Team Fortress 2, just think of a Heavy vs Heavy fight, without healing around, and no critical hits.

Project_Mayhem
2010-02-04, 12:20 PM
Action inflation: Anything that gives extra actions tends to hurt balance. Simply put, if you have X options per action, giving another action gives twice as many options.

Grrr, don't remind me how Vampire: the Requiem ruined celerity grumblegrumblegrumble


For those that play Team Fortress 2, just think of a Heavy vs Heavy fight, without healing around, and no critical hits.

The fool who took Natasha loses?

Aldizog
2010-02-04, 12:23 PM
My Turn: Where the game design leads to one player playing his own little mini-game for an extended period of time, or otherwise consuming a disproportionate share of the gaming time.

Tiktakkat
2010-02-04, 12:31 PM
Uncommon style playtesting - The playtesters were clearly playing in a way that an ordinary person wouldn't play or that they assumed everyone would play.

Related to this:
Compatible With All Operating Systems - The designers believe that the rules function no matter specific variations in the format of the campaign. While more common to tactical competitive games (I experienced it with Mage Knight), it also impacts RPGs when the fundamental gap between home campaigns and organized play campaigns causes severe disruption in the functioning of basic game rules.

Jayabalard
2010-02-04, 12:33 PM
Optional Rules only tested one at a time: Optional Rule A works and is balanced when used with the base rules and the same goes for Optional Rule B; but when they are used together, they combine to be unbalancing.

This tends to be a bigger issue when you have a big system, with multiple additional rule books. The rules from that book may work well with the base or core rules, but when combined with the rules from other splatbook, calamity ensures.

FinalJustice
2010-02-04, 01:48 PM
Temporarily Awesome, Usually Useless: Balancing characters by their durability, which leads to Nova Monkeys that spend 1/16 of the game dominating and the remaining 15/16 bored. This gets worse if the PCs have ways to control the flow of the adventure.

That's a +0,5 what bonus again?: Billions of situational modifiers/characteristics that are a nightmare to keep track.

In order to use this mechanical option, you need to train with a Templar Bunny Wizard and have intimate relationship with an Unseele Fairy Queen: Excessive background/fluff + mechanics association. To me, you should have none, but some association is acceptable. When it gets out of hand, it gets ugly. Easily solved by refluffing, though

JoshuaZ
2010-02-04, 03:50 PM
In order to use this mechanical option, you need to train with a Templar Bunny Wizard and have intimate relationship with an Unseele Fairy Queen: Excessive background/fluff + mechanics association. To me, you should have none, but some association is acceptable. When it gets out of hand, it gets ugly. Easily solved by refluffing, though

Hmm, that just gave me a terrible idea. A character with both the Lichloved feat and with Nymph's Kiss. Technically need to be evil to get the first, but I'm pretty sure the second can be taken by any alignment.

Sinfire Titan
2010-02-04, 03:51 PM
Hmm, that just gave me a terrible idea. A character with both the Lichloved feat and with Nymph's Kiss. Technically need to be evil to get the first, but I'm pretty sure the second can be taken by any alignment.

Nymph's Kiss is an Exalted feat, Good is required.

JoshuaZ
2010-02-04, 03:52 PM
Nymph's Kiss is an Exalted feat, Good is required.

Are you sure? I think it appears in BOED, but I don't think it has the [exalted] descriptor. Unfortunately, don't have BOED with me right now to check.

hamishspence
2010-02-04, 03:56 PM
I checked- it does have the descriptor. Though there are feats in there with no alignment requirement- like Nonlethal Substitution, or Resounding Blow.

valadil
2010-02-04, 04:05 PM
Power Creep - Do I really need to explain this one?

Ambitious Deadlines - WotC really likes releasing a book a month. But this means that the books they release aren't as well tested as they should be. Even if the game aspects are perfectly balanced, the editing needs work. And if the editing needs work there will be vagueness in the rules, and that's something players will exploit.

Errata as a Crutch - This is a symptom of ambitious deadlines. If publishers know they can errata any bad rules they get lazy. But the books are printed and most players never see the errata. I liken this to video game patches. Back before every console was online, developers had to ensure that the version that shipped was final. Now they can get lazy and every couple months you'll hear about some new game that doesn't even work out of the box until the 1.01 patch is sent out.

JaronK
2010-02-04, 05:19 PM
None of the items you mention are basic gear for a ganger.
Rifles 4 is not a skill you see a ganger with.

Spoilering the rest because it's off topic.

Actually, if the average person in SR3 has an average skill of 3 (and they do), and it's also pretty appropriate for someone to specialize in their chosen weapon if they only tend to use one, then our ganger would have (2/4). While Rifles is an uncommon skill for gangers, they're also cheap, basic weapons, so it still makes sense for a few to have the skill, and if it's the only weapon they can get their hands on, it makes sense for a ganger to have Rifles 2 (Sport Rifles 4). So actually, it's fine. If you really want, assume that instead of a ganger it's a hunter or a military washout turned ganger or whatever. Pistols are more standard for gangers, but they're going to have SOME variety. Remember, some gangs are go gangs and have a lot of gear. It's not surprising for any gang to have a little variety in their gear.


Take aim is a simple action that you can take up to a number of times equal to 1/2 your skill in the weapon you are using. Which means using your example even at max its only -2 to the target number for the attack I'll even add an additional -2 for the smart link (even though your average ganger can't afford a smartlink.) So far -4 to target number.

Correct, and the Smartlink 2 even is pretty cheap on the sport rifle. The Remington 950 has a Street Index of 1 and a base availability of 3 with a cost of 800Y. It's an appropriate ganger weapon... not all of them should have one (standard is the Predator) but a few might have these.


Lets assume their target is on the street at night walking at about medium range.

I was assuming decent conditions for the sniper, because the point is that this is a game where if you pick your battle and go first, you win. So, during the day, or at night under street lights if the ganger is an Orc or Elf.


Any smart sniper doesn't want to start close.

Hunting Rifle can be at short range from 100 meters away, which is actually about as far as you can get in a city. So, he's still at short range despite being a football field away.


That's partial lighting and a +2 modifier. Medium range is a target number of 5. So your gangers target number is 3. He rolls 4 dice (since he can't use pool because he aimed) and gets an average result of 2 hits.

See, you've just changed the scenario. In mine (Orc Ganger in a building shooting at a target 90 meters away under street lights) the target number is 0 base, 2 after the called shot to bypass armor. He averages 7 hits at TN2 using 4 base dice and 4 pool dice. And you can still use pool dice as long as you only take aim for two rounds (one Combat Phase).


The target, a shadowrunner now has to resist 9S damage. Lets assume the target is Human McHuman a street sam. He has body 6 and a lined coat on (B4 I2). The player rolls 4 combat pool dice to attempt to dodge at a target number of 4 (no modifiers) Average result is 1.9 so well say they get 2 successes. That's not enough to dodge but that's 2 successes they add to their damage resistance check which is next.

First off, his lined coat doesn't matter, because it was a called shot to bypass armor. Second, he can't dodge because he didn't know he was being shot at (Surprise situation, so the Orc rolls his reaction against TN 2 while the Sam rolls against TN 4, but the gamemaster can apply any penalties to this test appropriate for the fact that the human never saw it coming). Characters who are surprised cannot use their Combat Pool to defend against any attacks from that opponent.

So in fact our street sam is rolling his body dice only against 9S with 7 hits. He's paste... and the ganger still has another shot. The only exception here is if our street sam had enough crazy reflexes to actually go first against the ganger even with the various modifiers in that situation... he'd have to have incredible reflexes. If he can in fact react before the ganger can shoot, then he's probably going to kill the ganger.

Point being Shadowrun is a game where what's important is tactics and planning, not having a bigger gun. A ganger with a decent weapon who picks his situation and goes first against an opponent who didn't know he was there is extremely deadly... and that's not even a terribly unreasonable ganger at all. It's a game where the person who goes first and is in control of the situation generally wins unless MASSIVELY out gunned (such as if the street sam were actually a Troll in Heavy Security Armor or something).

Personally, I like it... I don't think there's anything wrong with it. It's a tactical game where walking in shooting because your gear is better is not always a great plan. But it IS rocket tag, because going first and getting off a good shot first is what wins a LOT of the time.

JaronK

OracleofWuffing
2010-02-04, 05:45 PM
Selective Realism for the Sake of Immersion: If you do not clean the blood off of your sword, you receive a -1 to hit after one day. If you do not sharpen your sword every 6 swings, you receive a stacking -1 to damage. If you do not use a proper sheath for your sword, your sword may break (DC is d100 plus 5 for each day not properly sheathed). If your sheath is not properly strapped on your person, it may bruise you, causing a -1 to saves for 5 hours.

If you want to cast a spell, say a magic word, click your heels together, and make the "Live long and prosper" sign.

Zaq
2010-02-04, 09:03 PM
Chocolate Rations Are Up: The absolute refusal to admit an error in previous books. While it's unreasonable to expect deep-level system errata, if it's obvious that an option is massively overpowered, do not continue as if everything is fine (or, in some cases, make it worse).

**** You For Playing: Things should come with drawbacks. However, drawbacks should not threaten to overwhelm your character, particularly if they scale up as the character does. (The iconic example is The Crazy Fumble Chart.)

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2010-02-04, 09:22 PM
Olympus Mons-sized piles of evidence to the contrary. Saying that something is balanced does not make it balanced, and holding a viewpoint in the face of proof to the contrary is just about the textbook definition of irrationalitySigging :biggrin:

Bosh
2010-02-04, 11:49 PM
The Specialist That Wasn't If you can specialize in one thing that is applicable to almost every situation you get big problems.

Splat Book Powered Specialists Often there's feats/merits/powers/whatever that you can choose for your character to make him a little better at someone. Now if you just wait until enough splatbooks come out that you can spend ALL of your feats/etc. on one narrow specialization you can get some crazy levels of power (even if each individual feat/etc. is fine by itself). I think this one will bite 4ed in the ass sooner or later. Pretty soon there'll be enough feats that you can put together a bunch of feats from various sources so that ALL of your feats help you be very good at once specific gimmick (something that wasn't really possible in Core).

Percentage Bonuses That Increase At Different Rates This is the central flaw of d20. If at 1st level you do 5 damage to critters that have 10 hit points and at 20th level, you do 500 damage to critters that 1000 hit points things scale easily. But if you have a +4 bonus to your spell DC at first level and cast it at critters that get a +2 bonus to their saving throw roll, while at 20th level you get a +40 bonus to your spell DC and cast it at critters that get a +20 bonust to their saving throw roll, things get very borked very quickly. This is why saving throws vs. DC, attack rolls vs. AC and skill bonuses vs. DC all get very loopy at higher level in 3.5ed D&D.

Endarire
2010-02-05, 01:59 AM
It's a whole different ball game!
You're playing along with certain assumptions, like melee and casters are about equal with each other. Give everyone a few levels, and suddenly people who could do their big thing only rarely can do it constantly.

Also applies to the notion of "low level, high level." Low level characters do minor things in the world- save a village, solve a minor murder, etc. and have a small number of options. High level characters cross the multiverse with a snap of their fingers and think solutions into reality. GMs need to think differently to keep up.

Often leads to nerfing high level options to keep the feel of low level games.

For example, highly limiting scry and teleport in D&D to prevent NPCs and PCs from dying to some irate mage who pops in, seemingly randomly, kills someone, then disappears instantly.

Roll high or die!
Tactics only go so far. Unless you (singly or collectively) roll spectacularly well, you (singly or collectively) are doomed.

Applies to combat, skill checks, and random loot. Especially humiliating if you have a 1 in 20 (or 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000...) chance of getting something world-shattering, but get junk the rest of the time.

Tiktakkat
2010-02-05, 02:34 AM
Errata as a Crutch - This is a symptom of ambitious deadlines. If publishers know they can errata any bad rules they get lazy. But the books are printed and most players never see the errata. I liken this to video game patches. Back before every console was online, developers had to ensure that the version that shipped was final. Now they can get lazy and every couple months you'll hear about some new game that doesn't even work out of the box until the 1.01 patch is sent out.

Do not forget the Older Brother of this:
Deluxe Edition - Featuring Beta Testing Revisions Pioneered by White Wolf, who came out with the hardcover versions of the World of Darkness core books a year after the softcover editions, WotC has upped this to deluxe leather bound version 6 months after initial release. Both feature the same thing - the original rules with several months worth of errata from the Beta Testing we happy fools gladly paid to do for them, despite knowing they have done it multiple times in the past.

Dimers
2010-02-05, 11:14 PM
Feat Tax, so-called 'options' that your character has to take to contribute meaningfully to progress.

Same Planet Different Worlds, gameworld design that inherently splits the party at times (e.g. astral plane, virtual reality, dealing with spirits, strong urban/wilderness dichotomy).