PDA

View Full Version : Is a balanced system arbitrary?



Gnomish Wanderer
2012-07-21, 12:12 AM
I have been giving some thought to role-playing games lately as I'm starting up an older long-running campaign of mine and I was looking into converting it to a different system. So I've been plotting out what kind of system I would prefer and that what led me to this topic.

Basically the title is the question: Is a balanced system arbitrary? If no choice is better than any other do they really matter?

There seem to be a lot of min/maxxers and the like among gamers. I have had the fortune not to meet any within several gaming groups, but the internet convinced me they exist. :smalltongue: Is a balanced system acutally taking away the fun from that type of player?

Discuss. :smallbiggrin:

Kuma Kode
2012-07-21, 12:20 AM
Maybe, if they derive pleasure from simply being "the best" in what they believe is some overarching objective manner. The idea in a balanced system is to make different abilities useful in different situations, but not make certain situations obviously more important than others. You can still optimize a character for a particular purpose or tactical use even if all roles are important and equally valid.

Just because we have unmanned drones and nuclear weapons doesn't mean we don't have infantry. The nuke is obviously capable of doing far more damage to the enemy in a far smaller amount of time and with no cost beyond materials, but infantry is still useful in the many cases where nukes are not appropriate, for instance.

Karoht
2012-07-21, 12:24 AM
Basically the title is the question: Is a balanced system arbitrary? If no choice is better than any other do they really matter?
Discuss. :smallbiggrin:

Sadly most of my experience with balance issues, as they relate to pretty much this exact question, have been with games such as World of Warcraft, League of Legends, etc.

As far as it relates to pen and paper/tabletop, that is where my experience is significantly more limited. I've only ever really experienced inbalanced systems and inbalanced games.


"If no choice is better than any other..." That isn't what balance means.
You can have a balanced system and have choices that are inbalanced in different situations. IE-Option A is weaker in desert terrain while Option B is stronger in that terrain. So long as there are a miriad of situational differences (IE-Terrain) along with such situational abilities (feats, talents, spells, etc)

There is also another kind of balancing. The use of "invariables"
Comparing a fireball that does 10D6 and lightning bolt that does 8D6 is pretty easy to balance out.
How do you balance the difference between a single target stun and a teleport? The fireball and lightning bolt are apples to apples, the stun and teleport are apples and oranges.

Lets then take Magic the Gathering. Since Wizards of the Coast uses a mathematical scaling model, why pick Red instead of Blue instead of Green? Playstyle differences and implimentation can be a form of balance as well.

If you want to check out an excellent discussion on the matter, I highly recommend the show Extra Credits and their recent episode "Perfect Imbalance" which you can find over on penny-arcade.com, just click on the penny arcade TV icon and the rest is pretty simple.

Temotei
2012-07-21, 12:27 AM
A lot of people enjoy the challenge of finding powerful things in a system. I think it would only detract from the fun of a few people.

Hylas
2012-07-21, 12:51 AM
Since game systems are made by humans a perfectly balanced and flawless system is impossible.

GURPS tries to do a good job balancing, but there's still points where it breaks down, such as point values beyond 400 or 500, or certain advantages such as getting magery up to 7 or certain combinations of natural attack.

At some point it involves a gentleman's agreement among the people who wish to participate in the game to not break it so everyone can have fun, or at least a GM who is willing to say "no" to troublesome players.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-07-21, 01:42 AM
"If no choice is better than any other..." That isn't what balance means.
You can have a balanced system and have choices that are inbalanced in different situations. IE-Option A is weaker in desert terrain while Option B is stronger in that terrain. So long as there are a miriad of situational differences (IE-Terrain) along with such situational abilities (feats, talents, spells, etc)

If you'd like to know more about this idea, it'd be a great idea to read David Sirlin's 4-part Balancing Multiplayer Games (http://www.sirlin.net/articles/balancing-multiplayer-games-part-1-definitions.html) article series.


If you want to check out an excellent discussion on the matter, I highly recommend the show Extra Credits and their recent episode "Perfect Imbalance" which you can find over on penny-arcade.com, just click on the penny arcade TV icon and the rest is pretty simple.

???

You mean this one (http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/choice-and-conflict)? It's far from recent. There's also this one (http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/power-creep) but it's not quite the same topic.

Stubbazubba
2012-07-21, 02:05 AM
I read the OP and the first thing I thought was "Extra Credits!" Glad some folks have beat me to it.

Incomparables are the key to making balanced yet meaningful choices for your game. The nice thing about them is that there's actually a lot more flexibility here; because a teleport and a polymorph function so differently from each other and achieve such different ends, their utility doesn't have to be exactly even. The hard thing about them is the more ends you can achieve, the more complex the system tends to get.

Making all choices of the exact same general and specific utility would definitely rob a lot of people of fun; in fact, it would rob everyone of the fun. We want to make meaningful choices in games, not just grind our way to bigger numbers so we're prepared for the next treadmill.

willpell
2012-07-21, 02:14 AM
Basically the title is the question: Is a balanced system arbitrary? If no choice is better than any other do they really matter?

The choices absolutely do matter, because the only reason to make them is personal preference, which should always be the only reason. If you WANT to play, for example, a Half-Celestial Monk/Ranger/Barbarian with a Vow of Poverty who fights with two sticks held in a Monkey Grip while Raging against his favored enemies, because that's what you enjoy, the system should not punish you for it. Game balance should serve to enable every player to make the character they want to roleplay, because this is a roleplaying game. They should be able to accomplish their in-character goals, which the GM has tailored to ensure that they have a satisfying game experience. In some cases, they will enjoy losing because it's dramatically appropriate for their character to face challenges which can't always be overcome, but that should always be the DM's choice, not the inflexibility of the game system.

Kadzar
2012-07-21, 03:39 AM
If you'd like to know more about this idea, it'd be a great idea to read David Sirlin's 4-part Balancing Multiplayer Games (http://www.sirlin.net/articles/balancing-multiplayer-games-part-1-definitions.html) article series.



???

You mean this one (http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/choice-and-conflict)? It's far from recent. There's also this one (http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/power-creep) but it's not quite the same topic.It's actually this one (http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/perfect-imbalance). Currently the most recent, but it doesn't seem to be on the list for some reason (you can click on the Hero's Journey Part 2 and next from there to get to it.)

Math_Mage
2012-07-21, 03:39 AM
Balance does not imply homogeneity. So even disregarding the obvious roleplaying impacts of choices about one's character, an optimizer can have fun with diverse character options that give situational utility. It's when you remove situational optimization that a problem might arise.

If you balance to the point that no choice is clearly better all the time, that's not a problem. If you balance to the point that no choice is EVER better than any other, then you don't have a game anymore.

Gnomish Wanderer
2012-07-21, 05:02 AM
Much appreciated on all the thoughts, I am glad to quell this slimmer of a doubt.Thanks for the links as well, I'll definitely use those. ^.^

Knaight
2012-07-21, 05:36 AM
I'd also note that the choice of what characters can do can drive a game. Take a hypothetical system, where a character has a Strength, and a Weakness. Say these are balanced - even then, [Strength: Rhetoric, Weakness: Combat] drives the game in general a very different way than [Strength: Combat, Weakness: Self Control]. The first is likely to be heavily political, heavily social, and with a few combat scenes that highlight the way the character is really pretty terrible. The second is likely to be about an excellent warrior who keeps making bad decisions that cause problems for them. Moving away from this example, there is no reason to expect this to go away even if the system is extremely complex.

Tengu_temp
2012-07-21, 03:29 PM
Check out Spirit of the Century, or Legends of the Wulin. Those are very balanced games, but still very fun, and two random characters will usually be completely different from each other.

I found the combat in DND 4e to be pretty dry and boring, but that's not because the system is balanced. You can fix it to be more exciting while still keeping the balance inherited in that game. Some people say that it's a homogenized system where every class feels the same... But that doesn't match my experiences with that game, so I suspect most of those people are repeating what they heard on the internet about a game they haven't played.

Hiro Protagonest
2012-07-21, 03:42 PM
Check out Spirit of the Century, or Legends of the Wulin. Those are very balanced games, but still very fun, and two random characters will usually be completely different from each other.

If you're going to say SotC, at least give due credit to the original. SotC is the equivalent of a splatbook for FATE. FATE, Fudge, and Strands of Fate (which is different from just modifying FATE a bit for a different setting; it's a generic rules-moderate system made by the same guys) are all balanced systems.

Tengu_temp
2012-07-21, 03:50 PM
I haven't played the original FATE, and I only recommend what I know. And I heard that the Dresden Files game, which also bases on FATE, has a terribly unbalanced magic system.

navar100
2012-07-21, 05:14 PM
Maybe, if they derive pleasure from simply being "the best" in what they believe is some overarching objective manner. The idea in a balanced system is to make different abilities useful in different situations, but not make certain situations obviously more important than others. You can still optimize a character for a particular purpose or tactical use even if all roles are important and equally valid.

Just because we have unmanned drones and nuclear weapons doesn't mean we don't have infantry. The nuke is obviously capable of doing far more damage to the enemy in a far smaller amount of time and with no cost beyond materials, but infantry is still useful in the many cases where nukes are not appropriate, for instance.

Nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Knaight
2012-07-22, 11:18 PM
I haven't played the original FATE, and I only recommend what I know. And I heard that the Dresden Files game, which also bases on FATE, has a terribly unbalanced magic system.

SotC was the first incarnation of FATE 3 anyways, and is certainly more central than Strands of Fate, which is technically third party. That said, FATE 2 is reasonably balanced, and pulls from Fudge, which has the potential to be reasonably balanced - it's a borderline game-design-toolkit which can easily be made horribly unbalanced, but it can be balanced. As such, SotC is a good example in its own right, more so than some of the other examples.

Tyndmyr
2012-07-23, 09:52 AM
I have been giving some thought to role-playing games lately as I'm starting up an older long-running campaign of mine and I was looking into converting it to a different system. So I've been plotting out what kind of system I would prefer and that what led me to this topic.

Basically the title is the question: Is a balanced system arbitrary? If no choice is better than any other do they really matter?

There seem to be a lot of min/maxxers and the like among gamers. I have had the fortune not to meet any within several gaming groups, but the internet convinced me they exist. :smalltongue: Is a balanced system acutally taking away the fun from that type of player?

Discuss. :smallbiggrin:

A perfectly balanced system...yes. Consider if your choice is between +2 fire damage and +2 ice damage, and you know that fire/ice immune/vulnerable enemies are exactly the same difficulty, and will be encountered in exactly the same number.

Then, the choice has a lot less meaning. It's perfectly balanced, but the act of balancing everything perfectly robs a lot of fun from the choice.

However, balance is a continuum. If the choice is between +nothing and +a bunch, it's not much of a choice either. The right answer is far too obvious, there's really no fun in trying to puzzle it out.

You want something in between, wherein good choices are rewarded, but are not obvious or trivial to accomplish.

Synovia
2012-07-23, 10:01 AM
{{Scrubbed}}

SowZ
2012-07-23, 02:39 PM
I like to fill my role in the party better than anyone else but I will also try
and make sure everyone else fills their role the best. So, in a 'balanced' system, it wouldn't detract from my fun despite enjoying system mastery because I would simply make a build that fills a role which is unique or more difficult to fill than others, though not necessarily stronger.

For example, I am playing an indie star wars game right now and I am the pilot. I make sure I am better at flying than anyone else, but right now I am also the best with a blaster. I will continue optimizing my piloting, but I have saved up some credits and next session I plan on purchasing the group blaster rifle focused character an awesome rifle so that he will fill his niche the best.

Balance doesn't mean you can't optimize and use the system to your advantage. The only time balance should take away from one players fun is if the system is so abstracted there are too few options OR if he actually wants to be the best at EVERYTHING in the party. If this is the case, that player should be made aware that everyones fun is important. Of course, the player may just not like the system or the genre which is their prerogative.

kyoryu
2012-07-23, 03:13 PM
Define "balanced".

In general, we can either define "balanced" to mean that there are no dominated strategies, or that all strategies have an equal outcome.

Additionally, any decision matrix generated can only be evaluated for a specific scenario, and ideally against what the opponent will be choosing.

If all options have the same mathematical result (regular attack does 10 damage 100% of the time, power attack does 20 damage 50% of the time), then there's not a whole lot of reason to choose one over the other (note there are edge cases, that was a deliberately simplified example).

Even varying this slightly, and giving the defender a choice as well (note that the choices must be made effectively simultaneously, *not* sequentially) can make it more interesting. If a regular attack is guarded by a block (it's too quick to avoid), but a power attack is guarded by an avoid (it powers through the block), it's a bit more interesting, while still being mathematically equivalent.

As a third layer, we can say that a power attack always does 20 damage, and a regular attack does 10, but have the same counter moves. Even though now we're not mathematically equivalent, there's still a reason to use each move on a given round, presuming you don't know what the opponent will do. (In game theory terms, there are no dominated strategies).

As a last point, it also depends on the timing of the decision making that's going on. Character creation decisions? Combat prep (spell choice, etc) type decisions? Round-to-round, in-combat decisions?

Karoht
2012-07-23, 04:06 PM
You mean this one (http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/choice-and-conflict)? It's far from recent. There's also this one (http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/power-creep) but it's not quite the same topic.
Actually I'm refering to the episode directly after Power Creep. But the Power Creep episode does contribute to the topic as well.

Gnomish Wanderer
2012-07-24, 12:12 AM
{{Scrubbed}}

Dimers
2012-07-24, 01:16 PM
There seem to be a lot of min/maxxers and the like among gamers. I have had the fortune not to meet any within several gaming groups, but the internet convinced me they exist. :smalltongue: Is a balanced system acutally taking away the fun from that type of player?

Heavens, no. A balanced system provides the fun. Being able to just flat-out win (via an unbalanced system, e.g.) is dull. I want the challenge of looking for how to excel in various areas of the game. I want to forge something excellent by the sweat of my metaphorical brow ... to go adventuring out in the wilds of Game-avia, bringing home character-concept loot and combo trophies.

Fatebreaker
2012-07-24, 01:23 PM
Define "balanced".

To kyoryu's definition's, I'd like to add another. We can also look at balance in terms of how well the outcome matches the stated intention.

A poorly balanced system, for example, might claim that the game is about social manipulation, wheeling and dealing, and favor-brokering. Real cloak and dagger stuff, y'know?

But if the rules are designed so that the optimal solution to any problem is to unleash nuclear broadsides from your colossal space robot, then... the system is not very well balanced, now is it?

A system which intentionally unbalances in favor of a desired outcome is one thing -- presumably, the folks who bought "Secrets & Socialites" wanted to play a game of socialites with secrets! But one which offers imbalanced options out of line with the intended outcome is quite another thing altogether.

Tyndmyr
2012-07-24, 01:27 PM
To kyoryu's definition's, I'd like to add another. We can also look at balance in terms of how well the outcome matches the stated intention.

A poorly balanced system, for example, might claim that the game is about social manipulation, wheeling and dealing, and favor-brokering. Real cloak and dagger stuff, y'know?

But if the rules are designed so that the optimal solution to any problem is to unleash nuclear broadsides from your colossal space robot, then... the system is not very well balanced, now is it?

A system which intentionally unbalances in favor of a desired outcome is one thing -- presumably, the folks who bought "Secrets & Socialites" wanted to play a game of socialites with secrets! But one which offers imbalanced options out of line with the intended outcome is quite another thing altogether.

I don't think that's a balance issue. That's either a design or an advertising issue. It's a problem, to be sure, but the problem is not one of balance...merely that what is advertised is not what is delivered.

It's a very different sort of issue.

Siegel
2012-07-24, 01:29 PM
You still have to use the System yourself. We can Play balanced classes and i still outplay you because i just know how to use the mechanics to my best interest.

Fatebreaker
2012-07-24, 01:43 PM
I don't think that's a balance issue. That's either a design or an advertising issue. It's a problem, to be sure, but the problem is not one of balance...merely that what is advertised is not what is delivered.

It's a very different sort of issue.

It's very much a balance issue, just approached from a different angle.

For example, if Wizard is better than Fighter, that's only a bad thing if Wizards and Fighters are supposed to be equal (or if Fighters are supposed to be better than Wizards).

Games are imbalanced, sometimes deliberately so. Imbalance is only bad if it runs counter to intentions and desires.

You're correct in that it ties in with both advertising and design, but that doesn't remove it from the realm of balance.

GolemsVoice
2012-07-24, 02:44 PM
Like others here, I'd agree: balance is when options that are advertised as equal (by being available at the same level for example) are (roughly) equal.
So in D&D, one level 20 character should be as strong (in their chosen field) as another.

EDIT: as others said, not everything has to be on the same level to be balanced. If the game assumes a certain class is just better, while other classes are not as good, it's still balanced if the other classes are equal, and are supposed to be that way, too.

Balance, to me, does not mean "everybody contributes the same thing" but "everybody contributes the same amount".
If a single choice, be it class, feat, power, origin, gear outshines all others, even in fields where this isn't intended, then a situation is unbalanced.
Two D&D examples: a wizard can be much better than a fighter even when it comes to simply hitting things, and a diplomancy-skilled character can, by RAW, solve ANY situation by talking a few minutes.

Now, balance doesn't mean homogenity. In a Wild West setting, you could play a gunslinger, a cardsharp or an Indian shaman, and all would have their fields and moments in which they shine, and moments in which they have to step back to another character. But all should be roughly equal in usefullness, in a campaign where potentially ANYTHING could happen.

Which brings me to my next point:
Balance is a thing that only truly exists in an empty space where any situation could arise at any moment. If you play a game of courtly intrigue, the warrior type might simply not be able to use his skills as much, and if you play a game where there is a lot of figthing, social characters might not have that much chances to shine.

Karoht
2012-07-24, 05:15 PM
You still have to use the System yourself. We can Play balanced classes and i still outplay you because i just know how to use the mechanics to my best interest.
Differences in player skill tend to be left out of balance discussions, partly because it is not objective, and entirely too arbitrary to measure.

Lets take two wizards. Level 20, no feats. Lets just look at the prepared spell list.
If you have a higher skill/knowledge cap, you may have taken certain spells and I might not have. You might have a more efficient load out prepared that day than I do. In theory, our two characters are still balanced because we both have the same options open to us, and they are of equivilant power (within a very narrow variance range). Or, we can take the same spells, but your spell usage and creativity of applying those spells could be better than mine. Balance is still largely maintained. We aren't measuring mechanic VS mechanic when we fight each other, we are measuring skill VS skill.

No matter how symetrical we make both sides, skill/knowledge cap are what separates the two players. Take chess. The only thing separating the two players are their skill and knowledge of the game and how to apply that knowledge.

Wher imbalance starts to take place is where skill cap doesn't separate players, mechanics outright does. Such as the DnD Wizard VS Fighter debate. Mechanics outright mean that the Fighter is probably going to lose. Skill has remarkably little to do with it. Mechanics outright mean that the Wizard has more combat effectiveness due to a wider variety of tools than the fighter, and the fighters only option to compete is 'get more wizard-like'


Is a balanced system arbitrary? I don't believe so in that I feel that an inbalanced system (a grossly imbalanced one) is typically picking winners and losers. Class A will always be better than Class B. And usually such design tends to push the imbalanced to be highly systemic, meaning that creating a level playing field between Class A and Class B tends to become remarkably difficult. Going back to the Wizards VS Fighters arguement, most of the fixes suggested to put fighters and Wizards on par with one another tends to involve a massive rewrite of spells, or outright bans on spells. Given the number of spells in the game, that is a HUGE amount of adjustment to make. Why so big? Because it is a systematic flaw, and therefore requires a system wide fix.

Pyromancer999
2012-07-28, 10:46 PM
I haven't played the original FATE, and I only recommend what I know. And I heard that the Dresden Files game, which also bases on FATE, has a terribly unbalanced magic system.

It's actually based on FUDGE, which while derived from FATE, is not entirely the same. As for the magic system....I can't really say. The magic system is a bit confusing, rather than overpowered.

As for balanced systems, I'd say that a system should be balanced, but not perfectly so. Taking D&D as an example, Druids perhaps shouldn't be tier 1, but I don't see anything wrong with a Tier 2 Druid. Still, overall balance for each individual group is ultimately determined by what type of players and DM you have.

Knaight
2012-07-29, 12:16 AM
It's actually based on FUDGE, which while derived from FATE, is not entirely the same. As for the magic system....I can't really say. The magic system is a bit confusing, rather than overpowered.
This is wrong on about every point. Most notably, Dresden Files is FATE 3, which is derived from FATE 2, which itself is derived from Fudge, with inspiration from Amber. Fudge is not derived from FATE, and was originally published in 1994, where FATE 2 was published in 2003, and Spirit of the Century, the first FATE 3 game was published in 2006.

dps
2012-07-29, 01:32 AM
Define "balanced".


And to think, I was going to ask the OP to define "arbitrary".

But, to a certain extent, I think that any system is arbitrary to an extent, no matter how you define either term. It's either arbitrarily balanced, or arbitrarily unbalanced.

ThiagoMartell
2012-07-29, 05:35 AM
I found the combat in DND 4e to be pretty dry and boring, but that's not because the system is balanced. You can fix it to be more exciting while still keeping the balance inherited in that game. Some people say that it's a homogenized system where every class feels the same... But that doesn't match my experiences with that game, so I suspect most of those people are repeating what they heard on the internet about a game they haven't played.
I played 4e for quite a while and my characters felt all the same. All they could do was fight. I felt specially confused when I dropped my Bard for an Avenger and still felt like I was doing the same thing.
There is a lot I like about 4e, but it is a game where every class feels the same.

Gnomish Wanderer
2012-07-29, 01:09 PM
I played 4e for quite a while and my characters felt all the same. All they could do was fight. I felt specially confused when I dropped my Bard for an Avenger and still felt like I was doing the same thing.
There is a lot I like about 4e, but it is a game where every class feels the same.

I think that is basically the heart of my question here, which I believe inelegance of speech had hidden in the initial prose. A friend and I were talking about this same thing recently and allowed me to discover a bit more how to put into words what I was trying to ask for.

Basically I was asking about the fight between variety and balance. They're not exactly opposite ends of a spectrum, but it seems that often one comes at the expense of the other. To slightly change the focus here, how would you keep a system feeling like it had options and variety while still maintaining balance? Is it even possible?

Blisstake
2012-07-29, 05:06 PM
While ideally, I would prefer a completely balanced game, I have yet to see one that doesn't achieve this by taking away from meaningful character customization.

Hiro Protagonest
2012-07-29, 05:13 PM
While ideally, I would prefer a completely balanced game, I have yet to see one that doesn't achieve this by taking away from meaningful character customization.

It would help if you told us what those games are.

Otherwise I'm going to assume the only balanced system you've seen is 4e.

GolemsVoice
2012-07-29, 05:25 PM
Basically I was asking about the fight between variety and balance. They're not exactly opposite ends of a spectrum, but it seems that often one comes at the expense of the other. To slightly change the focus here, how would you keep a system feeling like it had options and variety while still maintaining balance? Is it even possible?

While, as you said, perfect balance won't ever be possible, I'd say it's about niches and options.

If I play a stealthy assassin/thief, I want to be the best at spying on people, stealing goods, breaking into temples, and stealthily assassinating people. If I play a sword and board fighter, I want to roar defiance in a dragons face and protect my allies from harm. Both variants can do something that the other can't, and both should be good at it, but only within their chosen field (or in all fields to a lesser extent if I play a generalist).

However, in D&D 3.5, the answer to everything is mostly: play a caster. Sneakier than any rogue, harder and tougher than any fighter. So many casters have no niche, and because they cover everything, the other classes feel less balanced.

So to answer your question, a system can have as much variety as it likes, and will be balanced as long as there are no class/archetype/clan/whatever choice that is fundamentally better outside it's niche than classes designed for these niches.

Of course, that's theory, and actually going out and testing if thing a is about as good as thing b, is dificult enough.

TheOOB
2012-07-29, 05:59 PM
Everyone in this thread should watch the following two videos

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/power-creep

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/perfect-imbalance

They are about video game design, but the logic is applicable. A well balanced system should present incomparable choices to the player. Giving the player the option to, for example, between doing more damage, or making an enemy move slower is a good way to keep a system balanced without making everyone the same, or having a "best" build.

Rorrik
2012-07-29, 06:32 PM
Basically the title is the question: Is a balanced system arbitrary? If no choice is better than any other do they really matter?

There seem to be a lot of min/maxxers and the like among gamers. I have had the fortune not to meet any within several gaming groups, but the internet convinced me they exist. :smalltongue: Is a balanced system acutally taking away the fun from that type of player?

Discuss. :smallbiggrin:

I've got one minmaxer in my group. He likes taking advantage of broken rules and making the most powerful character he can. But I found something he likes more...

I started making rules for our own system and soon it became apparent that he got a huge thrill out of things that were so well balanced he couldn't decide which way he wanted to go. I don't know if he considers it a higher challenge or if he's just really impressed, but every time I manage to balance something well he approaches me and says with a big smile "I can't decide if..." and I just smile back, because my goal is to make players make decisions where none is the obvious best.

If there is an obvious "best" choice in a decision, then it's not really the a decision is it? The choice is clear. Making players make decisions where the choices are not rankable from best to worst is a mark of a good game. (http://irregularwebcomic.net/3205.html)

EDIT: Thanks, TheOOB, for those videos. They were incredible.

TheOOB
2012-07-29, 07:43 PM
EDIT: Thanks, TheOOB, for those videos. They were incredible.

Everything those guys do is incredible. It's difficult, but they explain, better than I could, that you can have a system that offers meaningful choices and is still balanced.

Endarire
2012-07-29, 08:46 PM
Extra Credits: Perfect Imbalance (http://extra-credits.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2787&sid=049716872fb42b16ae741dd52a8043da)

Hiro Protagonest
2012-07-29, 08:59 PM
Extra Credits: Perfect Imbalance (http://extra-credits.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2787&sid=049716872fb42b16ae741dd52a8043da)

*points three posts above yours*

Stubbazubba
2012-07-29, 10:24 PM
*points three posts above yours*

Points to first page.

Blisstake
2012-07-30, 12:54 PM
It would help if you told us what those games are.

Otherwise I'm going to assume the only balanced system you've seen is 4e.

I would actually rather not, because I know for a fact, saying two of the systems I'm thinking of will cause this to go way off topic into a debate I'd rather not get into.

kyoryu
2012-07-30, 01:28 PM
While ideally, I would prefer a completely balanced game, I have yet to see one that doesn't achieve this by taking away from meaningful character customization.

Well, to a certain extent, this is inevitable.

A system has to have goals. If the goal is "total customization!" then that's fine. But it does mean that some things will be better than others - both because their initial concept is inherently more effective, as well as just the combinatorial explosion meaning that it's very likely that numbers just add up better with some combos than others.

To combat this, restrictions have to be made. Now, where that puts a particular system on the range of "customizable" vs. "balanced" is not binary, and the point at which customization is still "meaningful" is certainly a matter of individual preference.

But to a certain level, balance and complete customization are contradictory goals. The character concept "the best fighter in the world that's also the best wizard!" is inherently unbalanced from the concept "the best fighter in the world!" or "the best wizard!". Angel Summoner is always better than BMX Bandit.

That said, you can have a "balanced" system that's not "arbitrary" given a sufficiently interesting system, and so long as you shoot for what I call "macro balance" rather than "micro balance".

Sufficiently interesting system: Let's say you have a system that is just hit points and attacks. No healing, no magic. It's trivial to make a "balanced" system in this case, but then any choices will be effectively equivalent - doing 10 points of damage 80% of the time vs. 8 points of damage 100% of the time, for instance.

Macro vs. micro balance. "Clerics should not be as good in melee as fighters, but should be better at healing". As long as this is true, you have a system balanced on the macro level. You could certainly argue that the healing/buffing capabilities of a cleric are more valuable than the extra fighting ability of a fighter, but that's getting into micro-balance. (Note that in this case, I'd consider self-buffing beyond a fighter's abilities to be breaking macro-balance).

Knaight
2012-07-30, 09:35 PM
Sufficiently interesting system: Let's say you have a system that is just hit points and attacks. No healing, no magic. It's trivial to make a "balanced" system in this case, but then any choices will be effectively equivalent - doing 10 points of damage 80% of the time vs. 8 points of damage 100% of the time, for instance.

These have the same average, but they are not equivalent. For anything with fewer than 9 HP, the second is flat out better. If you have N HP, your opponent has 9 or 10 HP, you strike first, and your opponent has an N damage attack that hits 100% of the time for retaliation the first turns into a 80% chance of victory and the second a 0% chance of victory. With multiple units and a HP and attack system, you could build an entire strategy game where one of the key mechanics are how attacks break down (for instance, a situation where there are 5 attacks at 3 damage with 50% to hit versus 1 attack at 15 damage with 50% to hit creates a situation where someone with 1-6 HP is better targeted by the first, and someone with 7+ HP is better targeted by the second). There is actually an existing strategy game where the way damage is broken up is a key consideration. There is tactical depth to this.

kyoryu
2012-07-30, 09:43 PM
These have the same average, but they are not equivalent.

Yeah, you're right. I think about putting that disclaimer up, since the meat of what I was going for was obvious, but didn't think anyone would be that nitpicky.

Barmoz
2012-07-30, 10:06 PM
I personally hate the idea of balance. I think a requirement of balance discourages roleplaying and is completely unrealistic, (as much as anything can be realistic in a fantasy role playing game). A powerful wizard should be able to do world shaking things that an individual warrior could never hope to match, however a poorly trained warrior should be able to beat the everloving snot out of a poorly trained wizard.

A tradeoff of high power late for no power early or vice versa is not balance. It's just a feature or challenge of playing a particular class.

As far as min maxing, if a player is playing "beat the DM" instead of roleplaying, then it's very easy for a DM to throw in an overpowered monster or challenge that requires a completely different set of skills than the player has developed and put him or her in their place.

Hiro Protagonest
2012-07-30, 10:37 PM
A powerful wizard should be able to do world shaking things that an individual warrior could never hope to match, however a poorly trained warrior should be able to beat the everloving snot out of a poorly trained wizard.

This is what I call (read: made up a name for on the spot) realism syndrome. Basically, it means that a wizard has virtually no limit on power, because MAGIC, but a warrior has to obey the laws of physics 24/7 unless the wizard is feeling generous. Even someone as epic as Beowulf is probably level 12 or 13. At level 18+, my fighter should be a martial god, someone like Thor (not sure whether the redhead or the blonde for this power level) minus the lightning powers, or The Savage Hulk, or Asura before getting the Mantra Reactor.

Karoht
2012-07-30, 10:50 PM
City of Heroes/Villians/Neutrals had a pretty balanced system in most respects. However, due to the fact that buffs stacked to infinity, it meant that there were hard caps placed on certain abilities. Damage Cap, Speed Cap, Recharge Cap, Defense Cap, etc.
That 'Cap' seemed pretty arbitrary to me. I mean, how did they come to those numbers? That a Blaster should have a damage cap of 820% or some such. Why that number?

Just seemed odd and arbitrary to me.

GolemsVoice
2012-07-30, 11:19 PM
A powerful wizard should be able to do world shaking things that an individual warrior could never hope to match, however a poorly trained warrior should be able to beat the everloving snot out of a poorly trained wizard.

The thing is, in games like D&D, the level system essentially runs on the assumption that on any level, each class will be about as powerful as all the others.

Rorrik
2012-07-30, 11:21 PM
This is what I call (read: made up a name for on the spot) realism syndrome. Basically, it means that a wizard has virtually no limit on power, because MAGIC, but a warrior has to obey the laws of physics 24/7 unless the wizard is feeling generous. Even someone as epic as Beowulf is probably level 12 or 13. At level 18+, my fighter should be a martial god, someone like Thor (not sure whether the redhead or the blonde for this power level) minus the lightning powers, or The Savage Hulk, or Asura before getting the Mantra Reactor.

Absolutely, magic is completely made up, so crying for realism in it's application is completely silly. If you want realism, everyone is a mage and all food is created by magic, as well as shelter and friendship, because what need is there of other jobs if magic is all powerful and earth shaking.

Make magic as limited as combat, or more so with more variety. Fun ways to do this are to limit the range of most spells to shorter than charging distance, make spell casting take enough time that it is likely to be interrupted(more powerful spells take longer), and stipulating that more learning is required before being able to bend the powers of the cosmos. If realism is what you want, get real about unlimited power.

Knaight
2012-07-30, 11:30 PM
A powerful wizard should be able to do world shaking things that an individual warrior could never hope to match, however a poorly trained warrior should be able to beat the everloving snot out of a poorly trained wizard.

Why? Why should magic necessarily be that powerful, and why should the basics of magic necessarily be so worthless? It would make perfect sense for magic to be highly limited, where even the greatest mage isn't likely to affect a large area, and anything really impressive involves ritual magic with a whole bunch of mages working in concert. It would also make perfect sense if the basics are fairly easy to grasp, and untrained battle mages were a part of most military forces, capable of relatively little but with a handful of memorized spells that they don't really understand but can nonetheless use. It would also make sense for both of these to work together - yeah, those spells apprentices have are pretty much all easily derived applications of a greater principle for mages, but that doesn't mean they necessarily have all that much power to throw around.

GolemsVoice
2012-07-30, 11:51 PM
To his defence, it would make perfect sense to be the other way round, too. Since, as others said, magic isn't real, everything makes sense (or nothing). But I agree that, for the putpose of playability and balance, magic should be limited.

Of course, if you want to creat a game where magic is just more powerful, nothing is stopping you, and it's not even a bad choice per se.

Knaight
2012-07-31, 12:08 AM
To his defence, it would make perfect sense to be the other way round, too. Since, as others said, magic isn't real, everything makes sense (or nothing). But I agree that, for the putpose of playability and balance, magic should be limited.

Yes, it does. I just don't see where it follows that that is the only way magic should be, which is what was originally implied.

elizasteave
2012-07-31, 01:07 AM
Yes we can have the balanced system as and when required. For instance regarding the games where sometimes we feel the need of this particular thing. On the other hand I also agree with Kuma Kode, just the way he has explained the aspects of balanced systems.

GolemsVoice
2012-07-31, 10:32 AM
Yes, it does. I just don't see where it follows that that is the only way magic should be, which is what war originally implied.

And I'd totally agree with you.