TTRPGs Balanced by GM Instead of XP

[HMS Invincible]

Has anyone tried starting a game where instead of building based on a budget, you build a concept, and leave the balancing to the GM?
E.g. Bruce Lee gets buffed and Thor gets nerfed until they are equal in power.
It was both liberating and disconcerting to build and play.


The system is GURPS, but I'm not sure how much it matters.

[JoeJ]

Has anyone tried starting a game where instead of building based on a budget, you build a concept, and leave the balancing to the GM?
E.g. Bruce Lee gets buffed and Thor gets nerfed until they are equal in power.
It was both liberating and disconcerting to build and play.


The system is GURPS, but I'm not sure how much it matters.

But making them equal in power would destroy the concepts you're trying to build. Why not leave them very different in power and instead make them equal in ability to affect the narrative? Smallville does that.

[Anymage]

Because if I'm paying for a ruleset, I want something that makes my life easier than pulling stuff out of thin air.

That, and just out of curiosity. Are you talking about RIFTS style balance (where the person playing a literal god can do more than the person playing a hobo, but the hope is that party cohesion and the DM's command of the spotlight can smooth things over), or FATE style balance (where a god-to-hobo power level disparity is still hard to work with, but superman and batman can get along because they both have roughly the same narrative heft).

[JNAProductions]

That sounds like more work for the GM. To use the systems I'm familiar with, I vastly prefer 5E D&D, since I can just say "Build characters with 27 Point Buy, PHB Standard for HP, and no SCAG. Run UA or homebrew by me before using it, but official material is okay. Starting at level 10," and have a reasonably well-balanced party, whereas in 3.5... Well, if all I did was say "32 Point Buy, HP is max at level one then average rounded up every level thereafter. Only books are Core and Complete. Starting at level 10," I can end up with a Monk who's got decent punches, a martial multiclass that can do 1,500+ damage in one turn, a Cleric who's nearly his match in close combat (and has full casting besides), and a Rogue who's just really good at disarming traps.

I'm not saying it's impossible-but I am saying it's not generally desirable. It's better to have the characters be balanced (by whatever metric of balance you want to use) by the system, rather than forcing more work on the GM.

[Psyren]

A game having both Thor and Bruce Lee (or a clearer analogy might be Goku and Bruce Lee) isn't actually the problem. The problem is expecting them to be in the same party at the same time without one feeling overshadowed.

[Quertus]

Has anyone tried starting a game where instead of building based on a budget, you build a concept, and leave the balancing to the GM?
E.g. Bruce Lee gets buffed and Thor gets nerfed until they are equal in power.
It was both liberating and disconcerting to build and play.

The system is GURPS, but I'm not sure how much it matters.

I can't say as I have. I can see it being great, or one of many GM horror stories. Captain Hobo comes to mind.

For me, it might be almost acceptable for my first one-shot in a system, but that's about it. I make things it's what I do. I enjoy making my own mechs in battle tech, my own decks in MtG, and my own characters in RPGs. But I've considered doing it as GM, when the players were unfamiliar with the system. But, as far as I remember, I never have.

[kyoryu]

Practically, this is relatively common in Champions.

While it's not done as explicitly, beyond the point totals it's very common for the GM to put additional constraints on abilities (no attacks above x, no defenses above y, etc.).

[Grod_The_Giant]

Has anyone tried starting a game where instead of building based on a budget, you build a concept, and leave the balancing to the GM?
E.g. Bruce Lee gets buffed and Thor gets nerfed until they are equal in power.
It was both liberating and disconcerting to build and play.
That...sounds like just a backwards way of "building on a budget."

[Honest Tiefling]

I probably wouldn't really care for it. Never tried it, but I can see two issues with myself. Firstly, I am not so great at mechanics, so a character I build and am intimately familiar with will result in less headache for others as I can prepare notes for that specific character. Trying to familiarize myself with a character seems like a much harder task in many systems.

Secondly, I do try to fulfill a combat role while staying true to my vision of the character. I will carefully select spells and skills based on what I think is appropriate for both. If I write a 10 page backstory I don't really expect the DM to read all of it, but it might influence particular choices. A dialog to facilitate this seems like it would quickly grow into a nightmare, so either I have a character I don't really feel storywise or I've just wrecked the DM's efforts.

[KillianHawkeye]

This sounds like what happened in the DC fighting game, Injustice, that came out a few years ago. It's a video game where you can pit somebody like Superman against somebody like the Joker, and because of some BS it's actually an even fight. That should never be an even fight.

[Psyren]

This sounds like what happened in the DC fighting game, Injustice, that came out a few years ago. It's a video game where you can pit somebody like Superman against somebody like the Joker, and because of some BS it's actually an even fight. That should never be an even fight.

SUPER BS pills! (https://injustice.wikia.com/wiki/5-U-93-R) :smallbiggrin:

[Lemmy]

This sounds like what happened in the DC fighting game, Injustice, that came out a few years ago. It's a video game where you can pit somebody like Superman against somebody like the Joker, and because of some BS it's actually an even fight. That should never be an even fight.
And in Marvel vs Capcom, Rocket Raccoon can single handedly beat Thor, Phonix Force-possessed Jean Grey and Dormammu... Because the game is supposed to be balanced. Making characters vastly more powerful than others because of their in-universe abilities is a sure fire way to make your fighting game a horrible game.

That said, in Injustice 2, IIRC, they drop the "pills of super strength" thing and simply have a story mode where all fights are between similarly powerful characters.

[Mr Beer]

Has anyone tried starting a game where instead of building based on a budget, you build a concept, and leave the balancing to the GM?
E.g. Bruce Lee gets buffed and Thor gets nerfed until they are equal in power.
It was both liberating and disconcerting to build and play.


The system is GURPS, but I'm not sure how much it matters.

I run GURPS and build most of my players' PCs or at the very least provide templates for them to use because I know the system better than they do.

GURPS superheroes requires a lot of GM work to balance. I solved the problem by using very low point budgets and a non-colour game.

Batman is probably 500 to 1,000 points in GURPS and Superman 2,000 to 4,000 points. You can't really have the 2 concepts as equal in power. Traditionally the way GMs deal with that is make everyone the same number of points or find ways to have both characters shine e.g. Superman punches out alien mecha while Batman ninjas his way through the villain's skyscraper to shut down the McGuffin beacon.

[Psikerlord]

Don't most GMs end up doing this sort of intraparty balancing in most campaigns anyway?

eg one PC starts getting ahead on the power curve, so the GM hands out more powerful magic items to the lower power PCs to catch them up. Or gives them a useful contact. Or allows them custom feats to boost their niche area or compensate in some other UP area. That sort of thing.

[JoeJ]

A game having both Thor and Bruce Lee (or a clearer analogy might be Goku and Bruce Lee) isn't actually the problem. The problem is expecting them to be in the same party at the same time without one feeling overshadowed.

Even having them in the same party only creates problems if the game is focused on repeatedly doing something that one of them is much better at.

[Mr Beer]

Don't most GMs end up doing this sort of intraparty balancing in most campaigns anyway?

eg one PC starts getting ahead on the power curve, so the GM hands out more powerful magic items to the lower power PCs to catch them up. Or gives them a useful contact. Or allows them custom feats to boost their niche area or compensate in some other UP area. That sort of thing.

D&D parties are supposed to be pre-balanced by the nature of the game. Putting aside how well that is achieved, the assumption is there.

Superheroes cover a very wide disparity of powers, the genre is inherently much less balanced. There are various ways of doing that but it's tougher than in D&D.

[HMS Invincible]

But making them equal in power would destroy the concepts you're trying to build. Why not leave them very different in power and instead make them equal in ability to affect the narrative? Smallville does that.

Why would it destroy the concept? One PC built an Edward Elric Alchemist from the anime, and realized he was too weak. So the GM adjusted his point total so he could afford a suit of magic armor available at anytime, along with some boosts to his attack spells. I think this is better than him getting creamed when the first manbearpig terrorist cuts him in half with a minigun. Average party point value is 1000.

The extra burden on the DM is quite a bit, I just got lucky with a DM who's very knowledgeable. Not sure how we are gonna rotate DM duties though.

[LudicSavant]

But making them equal in power would destroy the concepts you're trying to build. Why not leave them very different in power and instead make them equal in ability to affect the narrative? Smallville does that.

How does Smallville accomplish this?

[JoeJ]

Why would it destroy the concept? One PC built an Edward Elric Alchemist from the anime, and realized he was too weak. So the GM adjusted his point total so he could afford a suit of magic armor available at anytime, along with some boosts to his attack spells. I think this is better than him getting creamed when the first manbearpig terrorist cuts him in half with a minigun. Average party point value is 1000.

The extra burden on the DM is quite a bit, I just got lucky with a DM who's very knowledgeable. Not sure how we are gonna rotate DM duties though.

Your original example was Bruce Lee and Thor (I'm assuming the Marvel Comics one). Bruce Lee is a top level human martial artist. If you make him as powerful as a god, he wouldn't be human. Equally, if you make Thor as weak as Bruce Lee, he's no longer the god of thunder. And if you try to have them meet in the middle, you wouldn't end up with either a human martial artist or the god of thunder - they'd both have become something completely different than the concept you started with. You can make Thor and Bruce Lee equal in narrative impact, but not in power.


How does Smallville accomplish this?

In Smallville what drives the story is not what a character is able to do, but what they care about, and how much they care. The focus is on intercharacter drama, not on combat or any other form of action (which was also true of the TV show). So Lois Lane can have just as much impact on the story as Clark Kent.

Mechanically, it uses a form of the Cortex Plus system, which was designed for this.

[Kaptin Keen]

Has anyone tried starting a game where instead of building based on a budget, you build a concept, and leave the balancing to the GM?
E.g. Bruce Lee gets buffed and Thor gets nerfed until they are equal in power.
It was both liberating and disconcerting to build and play.


The system is GURPS, but I'm not sure how much it matters.

I would say that - in a game that actually works, this is almost always the case ... to some degree. It's almost unavoidable that some players have more skill at building characters, some work harder to grab the spotlight, and so on, and unless the GM works to balance all these things, the game will eventually fall apart.

[Quertus]

I would say that - in a game that actually works, this is almost always the case ... to some degree. It's almost unavoidable that some players have more skill at building characters, some work harder to grab the spotlight, and so on, and unless the GM works to balance all these things, the game will eventually fall apart.

Ah, thank you for reminding me - not all games that "work" have mechanical balance.

For one thing, different players have different levels of player skills. Giving the players with more player skill mechanically inferior characters, while giving less skilled players stronger playing pieces is a tool that can be used to improve game balance.

Further, not all games require balance to be fun! Some people enjoy playing Thor and Bruce Lee in the same party!

[Rhedyn]

This sounds like a training wheels session where the GM wanted to get you playing and using the play rules but left character creation for later.

It's what I do, especially for something as crunchy as GURPS

[Psyren]

Even having them in the same party only creates problems if the game is focused on repeatedly doing something that one of them is much better at.

I mean, if it's not doing that then you have a different problem I'd say. A game where you can be Bruce Lee or Goku but all you do is play golf for instance could exist, but I wouldn't call it an RPG. You're playing a role, sort of, but that's not really the core engagement that brings you to that game.

[Quertus]

I mean, if it's not doing that then you have a different problem I'd say. A game where you can be Bruce Lee or Goku but all you do is play golf for instance could exist, but I wouldn't call it an RPG. You're playing a role, sort of, but that's not really the core engagement that brings you to that game.

Does it come as too much of a surprise that I think that sounds awesome? I might actually care about Goku or golf under such a premise.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I mean, if it's not doing that then you have a different problem I'd say. A game where you can be Bruce Lee or Goku but all you do is play golf for instance could exist, but I wouldn't call it an RPG. You're playing a role, sort of, but that's not really the core engagement that brings you to that game.

So it's not an RPG unless you're fighting stuff?

[HMS Invincible]

So it's not an RPG unless you're fighting stuff?

It be weird if we formed Justice league, but all we did was fight HR Problems with our super powers. Actually, that could happen, but it wouldn't be completely without combat. Trying to solve a problem without resorting to violence assumes the confidence to survive the first hit.

PS I disagree with the guy who says a player who builds Thor in a average level supers game shouldn't be nerfed. Not all mechanics are equal strength, and having the GM formalize that directly instead of indirectly removed a lot of forced decision making.
For example, I would never play a monk in 3.5 or a Strength based character in Gurps/WoD etc etc because you use up all your points to be worse at a job as an optimized PC, who has points to spare for utility/fluff.
With a promise from the GM that all characters are equalish, I can build something close to what I want confident that nobody will be overshadowed.

Though I also agree it's more work on the GM. Having a system that's already Balanced is better, but not always possible.

[JoeJ]

It be weird if we formed Justice league, but all we did was fight HR Problems with our super powers. Actually, that could happen, but it wouldn't be completely without combat. Trying to solve a problem without resorting to violence assumes the confidence to survive the first hit.

If you're playing the Justice League, it would also be weird if you only ever had problems that didn't require that team members go to different locations at the same time.

[HMS Invincible]

If you're playing the Justice League, it would also be weird if you only ever had problems that didn't require that team members go to different locations at the same time.

Multiple teams, each team gets assigned as needed by the narrative. It also let's players switch characters as needed.

[Psyren]

So it's not an RPG unless you're fighting stuff?

No, there can be other forms of conflict resolution. But the role you're playing should have some bearing on that. It would be like... I dunno, rolling up Conan the Barbarian but having every conflict in the whole game be resolved via tiddlywinks. Maybe as a one-off aside that kind of thing could be acceptable, but more than that and the disconnect becomes too large to bridge.


It be weird if we formed Justice league, but all we did was fight HR problems with our super powers.

Yes, exactly. Though given how the Justice League dresses to go to work (all genders), I'm surprised there aren't more HR problems.

[JoeJ]

Multiple teams, each team gets assigned as needed by the narrative. It also let's players switch characters as needed.

And the problem with different power levels is thereby solved. You can even do it with just two characters (a very common trope in the comics) and have, for example, Green Lantern keep Sinestro occupied, while Green Arrow sneaks in, takes out Sinestro's minions, and disables Sinestro's Macguffin of Ultimate Doom. They're both doing something cool and important, so the power disparity doesn't matter.

[HMS Invincible]

And the problem with different power levels is thereby solved. You can even do it with just two characters (a very common trope in the comics) and have, for example, Green Lantern keep Sinestro occupied, while Green Arrow sneaks in, takes out Sinestro's minions, and disables Sinestro's Macguffin of Ultimate Doom. They're both doing something cool and important, so the power disparity doesn't matter.

It's the GM rules, I just play in it. BTW, it's not guaranteed that a hero fights an equal power level. Sometimes it's a guy who shoots trick arrows gets thrown up against a god while the super disables the mcguffin. Not always pretty for the underdog.

I think even with the the GM adjustments, it's still a work in progress. I'm not sure who's the strongest character yet in my game, everyone is keeping the details of their power hidden. My bet is on the mage, though ripoff Spider-Man looks pretty strong.

[JoeJ]

It's the GM rules, I just play in it. BTW, it's not guaranteed that a hero fights an equal power level. Sometimes it's a guy who shoots trick arrows gets thrown up against a god while the super disables the mcguffin. Not always pretty for the underdog.

I think even with the the GM adjustments, it's still a work in progress. I'm not sure who's the strongest character yet in my game, everyone is keeping the details of their power hidden. My bet is on the mage, though ripoff Spider-Man looks pretty strong.

Yeah, if the adventures are not designed in a way that allows matching characters with appropriate challenges, then the characters need to be much more interchangeable.

[Quertus]

PS I disagree with the guy who says a player who builds Thor in a average level supers game shouldn't be nerfed.

Now, that's a horse of a different color. It's fine to have Thor on a team of otherwise average (or even weak) superheroes - if that's what the group enjoys. It is not fine to bring Thor to a game labeled as "average level supers".


For example, I would never play a monk in 3.5 or a Strength based character in Gurps/WoD etc etc because you use up all your points to be worse at a job as an optimized PC, who has points to spare for utility/fluff.

Yes, there are builds that are suboptimal. Would you have no interest in playing a suboptimal character?

Also, would you have no interest in, say, anything but an optimal driver if someone else on the team was an expert safe cracker?

Personally, I have no problem with everyone getting to individually set the difficulty of their own personal minigame in a heist / shadow run / otherwise maximized niche protection style of game, for example.



With a promise from the GM that all characters are equalish, I can build something close to what I want confident that nobody will be overshadowed.

Though I also agree it's more work on the GM. Having a system that's already Balanced is better, but not always possible.

I guess my general lack of confidence in the GM to balance the game is showing. :smallredface:

Still, I think that the game is best when everyone works to make the game balanced.