PDA

View Full Version : Methods of Game/Character Balance



Mr. Mask
2016-04-30, 08:55 AM
Balance in RPGs is typically centred on combat balance, because the games are typically centred on combat. There is an attempt for each character build/class to, generally speaking, be more or less equal in combat. This can't be done absolutely, some abilities work much better in some situations than others. Still, depending on the RPG, this can work out quite well.

The second form of balance common is to have combat and non combat roles. A face character mightn't be a good fighter, but they're a killer in diplomacy. Games like DnD try to allow a character to be both, allowing Charisma to be a combat stat and such, but there's usually enough separation for there to be trade offs. However, this ends up not being an actual trade off, as you have characters who put no stake in combat, and characters who put no stake in noncombat activities. This can ruin balance, as the trade-offs do not worry players.


One idea I've considered is taking an advance on character power. You can make a somewhat stronger character, but your experience will go towards paying it off for the next while. It would be more experience efficient to make a weaker character.

Another idea might be to have some benefit for the rest of the party for having a stronger character in their ranks, at the same time as a cost to the stronger character. This would reduce any resentment for unbalance, and increase excitement at the prospect of a lopsided party. In general, having unequal pieces in a game seems more interesting, if you have puzzles based around them, I feel, so I would like to see experiments to this light. I also feel that this is already the case in many RPGs, as some players are crazy-good min-maxers who can blow the rest of the party out of the water. Some RPGs have classes that make the others look insignificant.


So, I've a question for you. What other methods of balance are there? I have some ideas... but it is not an easy thing to do.

Darth Ultron
2016-04-30, 12:20 PM
Balance is a tricky thing. It is hard to say what is ''balanced'', and even more so what is ''not''. Far too often the ''fix'' for balance is to simply make everyone the same.

Combat is tricky as it depends on what you think ''balanced'' combat is. Does everyone have to have the exact same chance to hit and do the exact damage? How do you rate ''contributions'' to combat. How do you make an archer equal to a melee character or the opposite?

And how do you balance non combat?

How do you make characters different and not clones?

Thrudd
2016-04-30, 01:03 PM
This depends. The elements of game design and balancing factors must be chosen based on the goals of the game overall. What is the object of this game? In what way are the players expected to engage with the game and each other? What sorts of interactions do you hope to induce?

If the object is for the players to engage in a cooperative storytelling exercise that results in an interesting narrative flow, then your decisions should be much different than if you intend to have a tactical battle game which focuses on realistic minutiae of combat.

If the game is competitive, then balance between players must be considered differently than if it is cooperative.

The problem with some RPGs is a lack of focus. Lock down what you really want your game to do, and then make decisions about how to do it. Talking about game mechanics in isolation from a design goal is pointless. "Balance" is not a goal in itself.

Mr. Mask
2016-05-01, 12:15 PM
Balance is a tricky thing. It is hard to say what is ''balanced'', and even more so what is ''not''. Far too often the ''fix'' for balance is to simply make everyone the same.

Combat is tricky as it depends on what you think ''balanced'' combat is. Does everyone have to have the exact same chance to hit and do the exact damage? How do you rate ''contributions'' to combat. How do you make an archer equal to a melee character or the opposite?

And how do you balance non combat?

How do you make characters different and not clones? You make good points, Ultron.

For an archer versus melee, you can make some assumptions about the common situation and base it off that. In DnD encounters, it seems to be rare for someone to be so far away that you'll get off more than two shots before they close, so ranged weapons should be that much weaker/less accurate to be balanced. They can receive further penalties for their flexibility, able to apply ranged support while your tanks stop enemies from getting to you. Of course, if you have a situation where a melee guy simply can't get to you, bows are infinitely better than melee. If you are out of arrows or are at point-blank range from a melee guy, melee is far better than ranged.

In effect, this is somewhat similar to reality. Guns are great, but bayonets and tomahawks are still popular because at close range, or when you're out of ammo, those can be very useful. The usefulness is essentially based off how likely the weapon is to be useful to you, rather than its usefulness in a given situation. Your ability to make that situation substantiate must also be taken into account (against the enemy's ability to make it not substantiate).

For games, if you have a smart GM, they can make sure you won't break the system too much. If the GM is exploitable, that is an issue that is hard for the game to protect against, without making the combat bland. As you say, contributions to combat are also hard to rate in terms of balance.

I guess the best way to really rate a weapon or build is simply to test it. If one keeps winning, then either those players are better, or they understand that tool better, or that tool is just better. I would love to see a game where parties of all fighters fight all Rogues or such, that would be interesting.

Balancing non-combat is trickier, as there are a lot of different activities. Performance, making money, diplomacy, and a lot of them interact. This is where systems like burning wheel are clever, where a lot of the cost is based off how often you use a skill.



This depends. The elements of game design and balancing factors must be chosen based on the goals of the game overall. What is the object of this game? In what way are the players expected to engage with the game and each other? What sorts of interactions do you hope to induce?

If the object is for the players to engage in a cooperative storytelling exercise that results in an interesting narrative flow, then your decisions should be much different than if you intend to have a tactical battle game which focuses on realistic minutiae of combat.

If the game is competitive, then balance between players must be considered differently than if it is cooperative.

The problem with some RPGs is a lack of focus. Lock down what you really want your game to do, and then make decisions about how to do it. Talking about game mechanics in isolation from a design goal is pointless. "Balance" is not a goal in itself. Yes, it does depend on what your goals are. Generally speaking, no one at the table should be too bored or feel too useless. Games like DnD have a strong combat emphasis, so they generally try to make everyone balanced in terms of what soldiers you would pick for a unit in your army.

For my cases, I want to have a game where completing the goal of the adventure as efficiently, safely, and fully as possible is the goal. You could just hit everything head on and take casualties, and you can play like that if you like. In which case, it is a savage, tooth and nail adventure, killing them because they kill you, trying to replace your losses and get out alive after completing the objective. If you made a party of all frontline fighters, it might even work out reasonably well. Generally, you are better to minimize conflict and have the odds always in your favour, doing whatever is best to neutralize opposition then complete the quest.

For this purpose, having a bunch of intuitive, flexible abilities seems one of the best bets, along with foes who may react to your actions within adventures. This can reduce need for exact combat balance, so long as your plans make use of your less combative members' abilities. It is good to make everyone somewhat useful in a given situation, though, even if it doesn't play to their strengths. That's where I think deadly combat is good, as even getting lucky can be a big help.

Darth Ultron
2016-05-01, 03:04 PM
For an archer versus melee, you can make some assumptions about the common situation and base it off that. In DnD encounters, it seems to be rare for someone to be so far away that you'll get off more than two shots before they close, so ranged weapons should be that much weaker/less accurate to be balanced.

It is true that ''most'' games don't take place at any range. Really, all fictional fights are very face to face in a way real world ones never are. The best example is fleets of space battleships that fly over to within like 50 yards of a enemy vessel and shot it all out like the Age of Sail.

But having the game where everyone just ''somehow'' agrees to fight hand to hand, is not in the rules. And it's kinda awkward to make rules like ''er, everyone must wait until they are in melee to attack''. Though shooting someone from dozens of yards away just does not ave the ''cool'' factor.



Yes, it does depend on what your goals are. Generally speaking, no one at the table should be too bored or feel too useless. Games like DnD have a strong combat emphasis, so they generally try to make everyone balanced in terms of what soldiers you would pick for a unit in your army.


One possible solution here is for each player to have two characters, a combat one and a non combat one. The gestalt idea is even better, as you can keep on character.

Vitruviansquid
2016-05-01, 04:50 PM
The best and easiest method of balance is to have well-defined, sensible niches.

Mr. Mask
2016-05-01, 05:04 PM
One thing I have been thinking, Squid, is that the kinds of characters or classes you can play ought to be very distinct. In many RPGs, it seems the differences between classes can be too subtle, most of revolving around slightly different combat abilities. When you pick a class, it should hit you, "I am going to insult people instead of fighting."


Ultron: Certainly, that is all too common in RPGs. Game board size might be part of the consideration. But you can always abstract movement and simplify combat till they close to a nearer range.

Having multiple characters is a good solution to that, yes, although it can encourage even greater specialization, which can get overdone.

Thrudd
2016-05-01, 07:07 PM
Yes, it does depend on what your goals are. Generally speaking, no one at the table should be too bored or feel too useless. Games like DnD have a strong combat emphasis, so they generally try to make everyone balanced in terms of what soldiers you would pick for a unit in your army.

For my cases, I want to have a game where completing the goal of the adventure as efficiently, safely, and fully as possible is the goal. You could just hit everything head on and take casualties, and you can play like that if you like. In which case, it is a savage, tooth and nail adventure, killing them because they kill you, trying to replace your losses and get out alive after completing the objective. If you made a party of all frontline fighters, it might even work out reasonably well. Generally, you are better to minimize conflict and have the odds always in your favour, doing whatever is best to neutralize opposition then complete the quest.

For this purpose, having a bunch of intuitive, flexible abilities seems one of the best bets, along with foes who may react to your actions within adventures. This can reduce need for exact combat balance, so long as your plans make use of your less combative members' abilities. It is good to make everyone somewhat useful in a given situation, though, even if it doesn't play to their strengths. That's where I think deadly combat is good, as even getting lucky can be a big help.

What, exactly, would an "adventure" entail, and what do you define as the "objective" of the adventure in this regard? It sounds like we're basically talking about D&D, if maybe the older version. The problem with trying to "balance" D&D is that it is often unfocused. 4e resolved this problem by deciding that the game would be a tactical combat game, and balanced all the character classes very well around having equivalently useful tactical combat abilities. Basic and 1e, to some extent, were balanced around long-term character goals and overall adventure requirements, which were navigating dungeons and getting XP from treasure. That sounds more like what you're doing.

So you would want combat to be fairly quick and abstract, because it will be something that basically only one type of character is good at, and the players will want to avoid for the most part. You have already observed that you want classes to each have an identifiable niche. Now, you need to decide exactly what types of challenges will be mechanically represented in the game to decide determine what abilities are worthy of being represented by a character class, and what are secondary concerns that don't need an entire niche dedicated to them. Everyone can fight, but a fighter gets a bonus to it and can fight longer than others. Everyone has a chance to find hidden stuff and be stealthy, but the thief is better at it. Everyone can have followers that accompany them, but the leader/warlord class will be able to lead more of them and keep them in-line more effectively. Maybe everyone can cast spells from a scroll or use a magic device, but the wizard is the only one who can actually learn a spell from a scroll and use it more than once, and spells and magic items are more effective when they use them. Everyone can navigate in the wilderness and attempt to track things, but the ranger/hunter is good at it.
All of these niches imply that these are things that will be a regular part of the game and helpful to completing the game's objectives. There is no point having a stealthy, trap-finding class if there won't often be traps and hidden things for them to find. If wilderness travel will be glossed over or not a regular component, then there's no point in a hunter/ranger class.

Vitruviansquid
2016-05-01, 08:20 PM
One thing I have been thinking, Squid, is that the kinds of characters or classes you can play ought to be very distinct. In many RPGs, it seems the differences between classes can be too subtle, most of revolving around slightly different combat abilities. When you pick a class, it should hit you, "I am going to insult people instead of fighting."


Ultron: Certainly, that is all too common in RPGs. Game board size might be part of the consideration. But you can always abstract movement and simplify combat till they close to a nearer range.

Having multiple characters is a good solution to that, yes, although it can encourage even greater specialization, which can get overdone.

I... guess? You don't want it to be like everybody playing a different class is effectively only active during a different leg of the game, like if you have a character that is only good at talking and nothing else, one who's only good at sneaking, and one who's only good at fighting.

When I was saying "Niche Protection," I was kinda thinking about how it works in DnD 4e, where there is a selection of classes that can heal, and no almost matter how strong any of the classes that tank or deal damage are, they aren't competing with the classes that can heal.

goto124
2016-05-02, 08:23 AM
When you pick a class, it should hit you, "I am going to insult people instead of fighting."

Vicious Mockery does both at the same time :smallbiggrin:

Mr. Mask
2016-05-02, 09:35 AM
What, exactly, would an "adventure" entail, and what do you define as the "objective" of the adventure in this regard? It sounds like we're basically talking about D&D, if maybe the older version. The problem with trying to "balance" D&D is that it is often unfocused. 4e resolved this problem by deciding that the game would be a tactical combat game, and balanced all the character classes very well around having equivalently useful tactical combat abilities. Basic and 1e, to some extent, were balanced around long-term character goals and overall adventure requirements, which were navigating dungeons and getting XP from treasure. That sounds more like what you're doing.

So you would want combat to be fairly quick and abstract, because it will be something that basically only one type of character is good at, and the players will want to avoid for the most part. You have already observed that you want classes to each have an identifiable niche. Now, you need to decide exactly what types of challenges will be mechanically represented in the game to decide determine what abilities are worthy of being represented by a character class, and what are secondary concerns that don't need an entire niche dedicated to them. Everyone can fight, but a fighter gets a bonus to it and can fight longer than others. Everyone has a chance to find hidden stuff and be stealthy, but the thief is better at it. Everyone can have followers that accompany them, but the leader/warlord class will be able to lead more of them and keep them in-line more effectively. Maybe everyone can cast spells from a scroll or use a magic device, but the wizard is the only one who can actually learn a spell from a scroll and use it more than once, and spells and magic items are more effective when they use them. Everyone can navigate in the wilderness and attempt to track things, but the ranger/hunter is good at it.
All of these niches imply that these are things that will be a regular part of the game and helpful to completing the game's objectives. There is no point having a stealthy, trap-finding class if there won't often be traps and hidden things for them to find. If wilderness travel will be glossed over or not a regular component, then there's no point in a hunter/ranger class.

Adventures are too varies to really be highly specific. It could be stopping a riot where you're trying not to kill people, it could be saving a kidnapped person. It could be pursuing routing enemies and killing as many of them as you can to stop them from reorganizing, it could be investigating a murder, or settling a diplomatic dispute. And the classic go into the dungeon to do X.

All the characters should be somewhat good at combat. Those niches I described need to be flexible enough that, while staying true to their essence, the game isn't a matter of just trading the spotlight. It's true that if a class's ability is not conductive to the situation then it will be rendered pointless, which is why there needs to be enough flexibility.


I... guess? You don't want it to be like everybody playing a different class is effectively only active during a different leg of the game, like if you have a character that is only good at talking and nothing else, one who's only good at sneaking, and one who's only good at fighting.

When I was saying "Niche Protection," I was kinda thinking about how it works in DnD 4e, where there is a selection of classes that can heal, and no almost matter how strong any of the classes that tank or deal damage are, they aren't competing with the classes that can heal. This is something I've been thinking about. In 4e, I think Warlords and such can also heal now, though probably not so well as clerics. I guess either you need to do it considerably better, or be able to do something no one else can.

Thrudd
2016-05-02, 03:07 PM
Adventures are too varies to really be highly specific. It could be stopping a riot where you're trying not to kill people, it could be saving a kidnapped person. It could be pursuing routing enemies and killing as many of them as you can to stop them from reorganizing, it could be investigating a murder, or settling a diplomatic dispute. And the classic go into the dungeon to do X.

All the characters should be somewhat good at combat. Those niches I described need to be flexible enough that, while staying true to their essence, the game isn't a matter of just trading the spotlight. It's true that if a class's ability is not conductive to the situation then it will be rendered pointless, which is why there needs to be enough flexibility.


If you don't want to focus the parameters of the game's goals, then it sounds like you want a more narrative system. You either need more generalized and abstract abilities which give the players more flexibility to use in many situations, or you need more homogenous classes that are close to the same level of ability in all the categories you deem necessary to be mechanically represented in the game. Players can distribute a few points on top of the baseline scores to differentiate their characters, and then choose an archetype which gives them a special ability. When they gain a level, or have enough XP to spend, they can improve a score or purchase a new ability that is allowed to their archetype.

For instance, using D&D 3e as the baseline, dump the abilities. Relevant combat scores for everyone are attack, defense, HP. Everyone starts with a baseline, +0 attack, +0 defense, and 8 hp. You then get four points that you can assign to those numbers in any way you want. Everyone gets all the important skills. Off the top of my head, I'd say: stealth, perception, diplomacy, bluff, athletics, investigation, sense motive, survival. They all begin at +0, and each player gets four points to assign here as well. Then you have the saving throws, reflexes, will, and fortitude: everyone starts with +0 and gets three points to assign to these how they want. Then you pick a class which will give you a special ability or two. You always add your level to everything you roll.
When you level up, you get to add one to each of the categories (combat, skills, saves), and/or pick a new ability from those available to your class (depends how powerful the abilities are), plus automatically add four to your HP. Armor type will provide the baseline AC to which your defense is added, and character class will determine what armor you get. The variation between the lightest and heaviest armor should not be as great as it is now, don't need as many different types, maybe a difference of five, 10 is no armor, 15 is full suit of plate armor and shield. Light armor 11, medium armor 12, heavy armor 13, shield gives +2.
Your class will also determine if and when you get a bonus to damage rolls, as well as what types of weapons you know how to use.

Everyone is pretty close now, character level determines most of the ability to do most common things. You can decide what niches you want to represent and use class abilities to represent those. There are games that are very similar to this already that wouldn't require so much work.

NichG
2016-05-02, 11:04 PM
The thing that almost every game must balance is spotlight time - every player should more or less be able to be actively participating equally (some players like to lead, others like to hang back, so in practice this will vary no matter what). If abilities redefine the scope of participation, they can tend to lock out others. For example, if combat is a separate game mode, a player whose character is good at combat can lock down the spotlight by starting a fight - until the fight is over, a player whose character is less relevant in the set of things defined to be part of combat will be less able to participate.

So avoiding modality or being able to break/change modality fluidly would be a good start.

LudicSavant
2016-05-02, 11:54 PM
It is hard to say what is ''balanced'', and even more so what is ''not''

When you can feel the indecision between two choices (for non-aesthetic reasons), that's balance, right there.


Balance is a tricky thing. It is hard to say what is ''balanced'', and even more so what is ''not''. Far too often the ''fix'' for balance is to simply make everyone the same.

Combat is tricky as it depends on what you think ''balanced'' combat is. Does everyone have to have the exact same chance to hit and do the exact damage? How do you rate ''contributions'' to combat. How do you make an archer equal to a melee character or the opposite?

And how do you balance non combat?

How do you make characters different and not clones?

Balanced choices does not mean equal choices. A literally equal choice is, quite literally, no choice at all. A choice between A and A is just... A. Indeed, the very essence of tactical gameplay is to evaluate which tactic has a superior chance of success for a given situation, and then choose the correct option. However, balance is essential to creating tactical depth; a choice cannot be too obvious, and the correct choice must be different in different situations, or else the tactical gameplay is not cognitively engaging; if a choice is too overpowered you can simply default to that old reliable choice instead of having to engage in decisionmaking (and decisionmaking is the core of tactical gameplay).

The art of balance in game design is the art of making choices competitive with each other.

Cluedrew
2016-05-03, 07:54 AM
Balance in RPGs is typically centred on combat balance, because the games are typically centred on combat.I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. And I'm not entirely sure about why I feel the need to do either.

On Balance: Most people say balance is about power. They aren't wrong but I don't think that is the right way to frame it. Instead I will rank balance quite literally on fun. But a lot of fun in games comes from your ability to do, or the power to. So "underpowered" options are less fun because they give you little power to and "overpowered" options take away other's fun because they override the power to of others.

Now there are a lot of details I'm skipping over because that is what people usually talk about. Those things do matter, but the generally work back to that same idea. In very completive games fun can come from your power to win. In cooperative games fun comes from your power to contribute.

I might be going a little bit theoretical here, but a rule of thumb for making sure all options are balanced: make sure they are all fun to play.

Mr. Mask
2016-05-04, 04:43 PM
Thrudd: This is a good method for testing out concepts, I was thinking of doing something similar.


Nich, Savant, and Drew all make good points as well. You want there to be choices and those choices to be interestingly different. You want each role to contribute and have fun.


A shared spotlight can certainly be good. Even if one character isn't the best at combat, if they can support the lead actor in combat and contribute in a fun way then they are still participating. having challenges that the lead actor simply cannot overcome alone is a good way to substantiate this, as the other party members, despite their combat abilities, become critical to the battle as a result. One possibility to encourage this is to encourage jack of all trades character creation, where it is not very efficient to super specialize, even though it is an option for those who just aren't interested in certain areas of play.

Another aspect is just if a situation has a lot of variables that need seeing to. Such as, if you convinced some of your enemies to not participate in the fight before... but now they're having second thoughts, now that the fighting is underway, and so someone has to keep them at bay and convince them to keep their word. Or you need to seal the portal while the battle is going on, or you just need to heal all the wounded that accrue.

RazorChain
2016-05-04, 07:44 PM
I'm going to propose that there needs to be no balance...at all.

One player in my game made a power munchkin combat character. Another player who was not playing a combat character but more of a rogue/magic user type asked me why I allowed the power munchkin to make such a character? So I asked him if he liked his character? Yes he liked his character. Do you like the campaign? Yes he did like it. Then I asked him what the problem was? Well the muchkin character was so good in combat.

Then I told him a secret. The other player likes playing his munchkin character so every session I throw in some extra mooks into battle for him to slaughter. He doesn't participate much in other things, no grand plans or great speeches so why should I deny him fun?

Mr. Mask
2016-05-04, 08:46 PM
This is a good point and plan. Overall, if someone is stronger you can throw in a few extra enemies and make them happy. So long as everyone is having fun. You just need to make sure not to overdo it, so suddenly the challenge is too great for the rest of the party if something goes wrong.

RazorChain
2016-05-05, 07:30 PM
There never is going to be balance, you as a GM just have to provide all the PC's opportunity to shine.

Social situations where the face character gets to shine
Knowledge rolls for the skill monster/knowledge character to shine
Combat for the combat characters
Etc.

Vitruviansquid
2016-05-05, 10:24 PM
There never is going to be balance, you as a GM just have to provide all the PC's opportunity to shine.

Social situations where the face character gets to shine
Knowledge rolls for the skill monster/knowledge character to shine
Combat for the combat characters
Etc.

If you're not playing DnD 3.5/PF, it is conceivable that all characters play a vital, indispensable role in all situations.

RazorChain
2016-05-05, 10:51 PM
If you're not playing DnD 3.5/PF, it is conceivable that all characters play a vital, indispensable role in all situations.


Well I gave up on D&D many years ago as I outgrew it's "playstyle". I felt it mostly catered to kick down the door, kill the monster, loot the room type of play. This was fun while I was a teenager and now today I have computer games that do exactly this.

As my campaigns tend to focus on other things rather than just killing stuff and taking it's loot then other types of characters get much more spotlight and become infinitely more useful.

Vitruviansquid
2016-05-06, 09:03 AM
Well I gave up on D&D many years ago as I outgrew it's "playstyle". I felt it mostly catered to kick down the door, kill the monster, loot the room type of play. This was fun while I was a teenager and now today I have computer games that do exactly this.

As my campaigns tend to focus on other things rather than just killing stuff and taking it's loot then other types of characters get much more spotlight and become infinitely more useful.

Imagine if the idea of "spotlight" did not even exist. Like, all players can contribute equally while killing stuff, and then all players can contribute equally while solving mysteries and while talking and while breaking into places, and exploring, and such.