PDA

View Full Version : Fair and balanced



Nevar
2007-10-02, 02:24 PM
I know there is alot of talk about D&D on here and how horribly broken it is. So who out there knows of a tried and true non broken system
Or at least the most fair and balanced system out there?

Rachel Lorelei
2007-10-02, 02:31 PM
I know there is alot of talk about D&D on here and how horribly broken it is. So who out there knows of a tried and true non broken system
Or at least the most fair and balanced system out there?

Wushu (http://www.bayn.org/wushu/wushu-open.html) is perfectly balanced, really, because characters are essentially mechanically identical. The only "balance" comes from how often they get to use what trait (if you have Iron Chef at 5 and the game never involves cooking, you're out of luck, for example), but that's never really a problem.

Crow
2007-10-02, 02:33 PM
Shadowrun 3rd Edition is balanced before supplements (not protein shakes, but books!) come into play.

Mr. Friendly
2007-10-02, 02:35 PM
Shadowrun 3rd Edition is balanced before supplements (not protein shakes, but books!) come into play.

I would tend to agree, but only slightly. Even the main book alone allows for entirely too powerful characters far too rapidly.

truemane
2007-10-02, 02:35 PM
I've always found the Old World of Darkness fair and balanced, partially because the system lends itself to improvising and rules lite campaigns very easily.

But really, systems are defined by their elegance and ease of use, not ny how "broken" they are, since any system, by definition, will have cracks.

Crow
2007-10-02, 02:50 PM
I would tend to agree, but only slightly. Even the main book alone allows for entirely too powerful characters far too rapidly.

It was never a "Start at level 1" type of game, but you are right. Spellcasters could get crazy, but only after earning hundreds of karma...in which case everyone else was pretty damn good too.

The one-trick pony builds, while possible, get weeded out pretty quick in actual gameplay though. Shadowrun is a game that rewards generalization, whereas in certain other systems you could get along just fine being built for "combat and combat only". This is due to the lethality of the game I think. There is a good chance that a team member can die very unexpectedly, and if the team is all specialists, suddenly the team is missing a critical component.

Besides, most cheese comes from Troll Melee builds...which are easy enough to take care of.

Indon
2007-10-02, 02:51 PM
I thought the most potent cheese method in Shadowrun 3'rd ed. was a magnificently high Initiative?

Crow
2007-10-02, 02:57 PM
I thought the most potent cheese method in Shadowrun 3'rd ed. was a magnificently high Initiative?

No that's a feature...really I'm not joking. High initiative is great too. But Even that doesn't help you if you have to make an escape in a chopper and can't fly one.

Plus cyber is so prevalent in the setting that there is a good chance your opposition could have the same advantage, which offsets it slightly...That's why it's a feature. The players are assumed to be badasses already =)

Rachel Lorelei
2007-10-02, 02:58 PM
Besides, most cheese comes from Troll Melee builds...which are easy enough to take care of.

As I understand it, the worst cheese comes from Trolls with composite bows.
Who shoot dragons down.

Crow
2007-10-02, 03:04 PM
As I understand it, the worst cheese comes from Trolls with composite bows.
Who shoot dragons down.

Usually that only happens when the Dragon isn't played too well...Like in D&D. But then, Shadowrun doesn't make the presumption that Dragons are invincible...or at least our group doesn't.

It's when those trolls start shooting down main battle tanks...

Stormcrow
2007-10-02, 08:07 PM
I would tend to agree, but only slightly. Even the main book alone allows for entirely too powerful characters far too rapidly.

I think you just defined the game as a criticism of the game. :P


Usually that only happens when the Dragon isn't played too well...Like in D&D. But then, Shadowrun doesn't make the presumption that Dragons are invincible...or at least our group doesn't.

It's when those trolls start shooting down main battle tanks...

In D&D, they aren't. In Shadowrun, while having more firepower, they really kind of are. Ala Dunzelkhan (sp). His death took the concert of at least eight factions and caused a magical dead zone.

BRC
2007-10-02, 08:11 PM
The only truely balanced game is Paranoia, for even if you succeed in making a munchkin character (Almost impossible since all the skills are just lesser degrees of incompetancy), your teamates will just kill/report you for treason out of spite.

DraPrime
2007-10-02, 08:11 PM
The Shadow of Yesterday (http://zork.net/~nick/loyhargil/tsoy2/book1--rulebook.html) is an excellent system. It's very easy to learn, and very well balanced. It's also incredibly customizable.

Bassetking
2007-10-02, 08:43 PM
I'm a big fan of both Dogs in the Vineyard and Spirit of the Century.

DraPrime
2007-10-02, 09:09 PM
I'm a big fan of both Dogs in the Vineyard and Spirit of the Century.
Dogs in the Vineyard is definitely worth checking out. I also really like Don't Rest Your Head (http://www.evilhat.com/home/?page_id=101). It is REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY fun.

Crow
2007-10-02, 09:15 PM
In D&D, they aren't. In Shadowrun, while having more firepower, they really kind of are. Ala Dunzelkhan (sp). His death took the concert of at least eight factions and caused a magical dead zone.


That was a Great Dragon, which is on a totally different scale. Even the worst cheese won't kill them. The average dragon (oxymoron?) is definately killable even without cheese.

HidaTsuzua
2007-10-02, 09:37 PM
Shadowrun 3rd edition is a bit clunky at times (decking and vehicle rules ugh). It's a decent system overall especially if you don't have a problem with the harsh step ladder like difficulty curve for TNs. Magicians vs Street Samurai is a worthwhile argument though still favoring magicians. The expansion books have a few issues (don't touch weapon creation rules at all), but are overall quite excellent. Honestly, I like it more than 4th edition.

As for roleplaying, the setting and motivations for playing are way better if you don't think about it (car-jacking vs shadowrunning or magic hippie volcanoes powered by Satan). You should as a group decide if you all are playing in a Tom Clancy novel or A-Team episode? Both are cool in their own way, but trying to mix them is going to lead to trouble.

I'm a huge fan of HERO. It appears to be a very intimidating system to be sure, but honestly it's because the rules system is really about "what exactly are you trying to do with this game?" If you can answer that question honestly, it won't let you down. A ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure. It's also a simple system in session though character creation can take time. The price of rule freedom is decision making.

Hero doesn't have a setting and the splatbooks are more about "how do I make a RPG in this genre" than a list of new powers (there is new powers but really you could make them with the core book so they're not really new, just ideas). The advice is generally quite excellent and points out common issues in gameplay (like how deadly do you want guns to be and the effect of that on gameplay) as well as common genre tropes, character styles, and background on the genre as a whole.

Stormcrow
2007-10-02, 10:00 PM
Does anyone know what the balance is like in Shadowrun 4th ed?

Crow
2007-10-02, 10:10 PM
Never played it...the rules changes weren't to my liking.

But I do know that they put an upper limit to skills, but none on the magic attribute.

horseboy
2007-10-02, 10:39 PM
I know there is alot of talk about D&D on here and how horribly broken it is. So who out there knows of a tried and true non broken system
Or at least the most fair and balanced system out there?
For me, at least, an non broken system is not about how fair and balanced I precieve it, but how hard do I have to push to break it.

I do like Shadowrun 2nd (didn't play 3rd). Cyberpunk, a little wonky, but still solid. I also like Rolemaster if I'm going to create from scratch. Earthdawn can take a lot of abuse too. Harn seems pretty solid, but I haven't been able to give it a good shakedown.

Then you've got old school stuff that's really solid, like Traveler, Twilight 2000.
Traveler is great because even their cat girls are physicists.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-03, 09:02 AM
I've always found the Old World of Darkness fair and balanced, partially because the system lends itself to improvising and rules lite campaigns very easily.
QFT.


The only truely balanced game is Paranoia, for even if you succeed in making a munchkin character (Almost impossible since all the skills are just lesser degrees of incompetancy), your teamates will just kill/report you for treason out of spite.
Also QFT.

In general, the more a system relies on fluff and roleplaying, and the less it relies on mechanics, points, classes, and levels, the more it is balanced. Obviously, the more complex a system becomes, the greater the chance it has loopholes, or unexpected combinations, et cetera.

Tengu
2007-10-03, 09:21 AM
Earthdawn seems to be a pretty balanced system - no discipline really overshadows any other.

Fading Suns give you so many points at the start that you have to try really hard to make a character that won't be great at something.

Exalted seems balanced in such a way that everyone is horribly overpowered.

Saph
2007-10-03, 09:23 AM
In general, the more a system relies on fluff and roleplaying, and the less it relies on mechanics, points, classes, and levels, the more it is balanced.

Nah, that just means balance is up to the GM. So breaking the game is done by becoming the GM's favourite, instead. Just like in LARPs, where the way to gain an advantage over everyone else is to be more closely involved with the plot/referee team.

- Saph

horseboy
2007-10-03, 09:32 AM
Nah, that just means balance is up to the GM. So breaking the game is done by becoming the GM's favourite, instead. Just like in LARPs, where the way to gain an advantage over everyone else is to be more closely involved with the plot/referee team.

- Saph

Well, yeah. Sleeping with the DM always grants plot armour in any game system. :smallwink:

Renegade Paladin
2007-10-03, 09:37 AM
I've always found the Old World of Darkness fair and balanced, partially because the system lends itself to improvising and rules lite campaigns very easily.
I don't know, that really depends. I'm playing an oWoD crossover campaign right now, and I can't help but note that the Hunters are considerably weaker in combat than either mages or werewolves, and the vampires my character hunts tend to be even worse.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-10-03, 09:39 AM
Balance is over-rated.

Exalted is "balanced" in that, as noted earlier, everyone is more powerful than just about 99% of the NPCs of the world. Fun game, however.

The Mages of Ars Magica are overbalanced than other characters, but since everyone plays a Mage and a handful of the other characters, it's balanced between players.

The Second Edition of Warhammer FRPG is fairly well balanced as well, though a bit in the opposite direction of Exalted.


Exalted: A hideous abmoniation of nature? ATTACK AND DESTROY!
Warhammer: A hideous abomination of nature? RUN AWAY!

Saph
2007-10-03, 09:59 AM
Well, yeah. Sleeping with the DM always grants plot armour in any game system. :smallwink:

I used the word 'involved' for a reason. :smallwink:

- Saph

horseboy
2007-10-03, 10:01 AM
I used the word 'involved' for a reason. :smallwink:

- Saph

Hey, nothing prevents an unnecessary TPK like "That look."

truemane
2007-10-03, 10:03 AM
I don't know, that really depends. I'm playing an oWoD crossover campaign right now, and I can't help but note that the Hunters are considerably weaker in combat than either mages or werewolves, and the vampires my character hunts tend to be even worse.

Well, that stands to reason, since the Hunters were meant to be weaker. Ordinary People in Extraordinary situations, right? Their Edges are meant to even up the score given time, patience, and planning.

And werewolves SHOULD be the be-all-end-all of combat. That' s what they DO.

And a high Arete Mage can pwn any of them without even trying all that hard.

But I see your point. I just meant that the system is fairly elegant, without the preponderance of rules that make for breakage in DnD. And the nature of the system means that houseruling and improvisation are easier than in Dnd.

I've always found it to be so, anyway.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-10-03, 10:36 AM
Hey, nothing prevents an unnecessary TPK like "That look."

As long as you remember the difference between "involved" and "married".

I've found that TPKs are less frequent when you play with the DM's gf or bf, than when you play with the DM's spouse.

truemane
2007-10-03, 10:47 AM
As long as you remember the difference between "involved" and "married".

I've found that TPKs are less frequent when you play with the DM's gf or bf, than when you play with the DM's spouse.

I used to play in my older brother's AD&D campaigns with his wife and a mutual friend. We'd play these rambling, humourous games where my brother would heap bonuses and magic on us, and throw stupidly powerful creatures around just to see what happend.

Anyway, he was OUTRAGEOUSLY unfair where his wife was concerned. It was funny. We'd all be walking along, he'd roll some dice. Say "Okay, explosion. Everyone takes 1,265 damage. Not you, honey."

Good times.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-10-03, 10:57 AM
Heh. In my group, it's usually the DM and his wife who are arguing rules. Games have delayed for 5-15 minutes as they argue a ruling. Most often she's the one claiming he's gonna kill the entire party as well. He's yet to manage this, but it hasn't stopped her.

Jannex
2007-10-03, 05:15 PM
I don't know, that really depends. I'm playing an oWoD crossover campaign right now, and I can't help but note that the Hunters are considerably weaker in combat than either mages or werewolves, and the vampires my character hunts tend to be even worse.

Well, in the original WoD, the mechanics weren't designed to encourage crossover between games, the way they are in nWoD. Within each supernatural type, though, things tend to be fairly balanced.

HidaTsuzua
2007-10-03, 05:19 PM
Does anyone know what the balance is like in Shadowrun 4th ed?

I've run some 4th edition games. It isn't pretty.

The balance in Shadowrun 4th edition is terrible to almost WoD levels. Basically magicians easily overshadow samurai with just spells. It gets downright insulting if the magician is good at conjuring. This combined with the only good defense against magic is another magician makes magic users powerful.

Hackers (Deckers) are so messed up in their own way in that they're either gods who bought MS Hacker or downright pathetic (basically are you playing RAW and fluff as written or are NPCs smart like the PCs and not use anything important wirelessly?). Technomancers are horrible hackers (basically they have to burn a ton of XP just to be anywhere near as good as a starting hacker) but are "balanced" by having "sprites" who have powers that are basically "unstoppable X" (encryption, hacking, attacks, etc).

Character creation runs into the same problem WoD does. Flat costs now vs linear costs later. This means you should max out what's important for your character at creation and then become more "well-rounded" as time goes on. People who try to be well-rounded at creation aren't much more well-round than the specialists off the bat, are worse at whatever they're suppose to be good at (in a game of opposed rolls and consequences for failing, this is huge), and will have to pay more XP to boot! They did try to fix this by throwing in all sorts of "gotchas" into creation but these tend to be arbitrary, easy to overlook (they're often just throw in the middle of a paragraph somewhere), and mildly effective at best. It's no wonder than despite their horrible weakness the majority of sample characters are illegal!

To be fair, they did fix some of the balance issues in 3rd edition especially when it comes to equipment (shotguns being the best weapon, light pistols being worthwhile, not everyone uses quick-draw concealable holsters, etc). It's also an easier less clunky system with a simple linear difficulty curve.

As for "fluff-heavy" games vs more "crunch-heavy", bad rules are bad rules. It's become fashionable to invoke rule zero to fix them. The point of rules are to handle possible disagreements and make things easier for the GM. They shouldn't add more disagreements or make things harder. And if you're playing a game that requires constant use of rule zero to do anything especially stuff that you are doing often, why are you bothering with them? Use a better system, change the old so it actually works, or make your own.

Winterwind
2007-10-03, 06:16 PM
ShadowRun 3rd edition has a good bunch of balance issues as well.
There's stuff like the aforementioned shotgun; but that's by far not the only offender. Magic users come to mind.

While a magic user is not superior to a mundane character off the bat, there are a few options available for him which will make him superior to mundanes, or to other magic user types.

Adepts on the Magician's Way, for instance, are quite a bit superior to normal magicians: They have all the sorcery and conjurings skills, more initial spell points and astral perception, PLUS they can learn any adepts forces later on, including improved initiative, thus making them spell casters with the initiave of street samurais. Their only disadvantage is their lack of astral projection.

Sustaining foci are another matter: Without suffering target number modifications due to concentrating on sustaining spells, with initiative boosting spells or alike permanently active, a magician is becoming pretty powerful and may well start stealing the show.

And then there's initiation, which is perfectly fine - as long as initate levels stay low.

All of this can be easily amended, by banning specific combinations of sustaining focus and spell, by placing enough astral barriers and by disallowing initiation without good in-game reasons (then again, this applies to anything), but the problems are there nevertheless.

---

Now, generally, I think games tend to be far better balanced if everything is open to every character and everyone just defines who he is and what he can do by putting his available points accordingly, instead of, for instance, a class system. Call of Cthulhu (the d100 version) would be a good example of a game I would consider balanced (if not for the fact that a good bunch of important stats is determined via dice roll) - every player has some points and may distribute them amongst the skills as they see fit, with no aspect of the game getting undue focus - the only thing which determines how good a character can fight with a gun is his score in Guns, a skill like any other, not distinguished in any way. The only way the game could be unbalanced would be if the adventures were such that they always called for some specific skills some characters would possess, and the others would not - but that's more of a poor gamemaster issue.
Oh, right, dice rolls at character creation. Unbalancing per definition - while people get the same chances, the end results vary.

...So I guess I just said a balanced game, in my opinion, puts roughly the same focus in terms of options for every aspect of the game, instead of overemphasising one (like combat), has no classes and no dice rolls involved in character creation. Hoo boy. What an undiplomatic thing to say on a primarily D&D oriented forum. :smallbiggrin:

Maybe I should add that none of these are definite requirements; they are just helpful for a balanced game, but I have seen games which were balanced and had, for example, classes. Although these usually still had a fairly large amount of freedom in their character creation.

HidaTsuzua
2007-10-03, 07:48 PM
ShadowRun 3rd edition has a good bunch of balance issues as well.
There's stuff like the aforementioned shotgun; but that's by far not the only offender. Magic users come to mind.

While a magic user is not superior to a mundane character off the bat, there are a few options available for him which will make him superior to mundanes, or to other magic user types.

Adepts on the Magician's Way, for instance, are quite a bit superior to normal magicians: They have all the sorcery and conjurings skills, more initial spell points and astral perception, PLUS they can learn any adepts forces later on, including improved initiative, thus making them spell casters with the initiave of street samurais. Their only disadvantage is their lack of astral projection.

Sustaining foci are another matter: Without suffering target number modifications due to concentrating on sustaining spells, with initiative boosting spells or alike permanently active, a magician is becoming pretty powerful and may well start stealing the show.

And then there's initiation, which is perfectly fine - as long as initate levels stay low.

All of this can be easily amended, by banning specific combinations of sustaining focus and spell, by placing enough astral barriers and by disallowing initiation without good in-game reasons (then again, this applies to anything), but the problems are there nevertheless.

True. But most of the magic problems you mention are from Magic in the Shadows and not in the main rulebook (initiation, magician's way adepts). Sustaining foci are an issue however. Magicians are still better than samurai in the core books, but it's a smaller gap than in 4th edition or other games with mundane and magical PCs. One houserule that helps is to calculate drain by Force + modifiers rather than Force/2 + modifiers. It makes it harder to reliably cast without drain, a turning point in a magician's power.

Neon Knight
2007-10-03, 08:03 PM
Some what off topic, but does anyone have experience with Savage Worlds? I was considering looking into the Savage World of Solomon Kane.

Matthew
2007-10-03, 08:12 PM
I haven't got much experience with savage Worlds myself, but the guy who puts out 1001+1 Arabian Nights (http://1001nightsand1night.110mb.com/) seems to have plenty of experience. It's fairly rules light, which means balance issues are generally down to the GM.

Crow
2007-10-03, 08:44 PM
One houserule that helps is to calculate drain by Force + modifiers rather than Force/2 + modifiers. It makes it harder to reliably cast without drain, a turning point in a magician's power.

This works wonders.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-10-03, 08:55 PM
It might be lying propaganda, but I think GURPS is the most balanced system. It still has cheese, but certainly not as much as, say, Time Stop + an orb or sphere + Forcecage = win against non huge critters.

Winterwind
2007-10-03, 09:05 PM
True. But most of the magic problems you mention are from Magic in the Shadows and not in the main rulebook (initiation, magician's way adepts). Sustaining foci are an issue however. Magicians are still better than samurai in the core books, but it's a smaller gap than in 4th edition or other games with mundane and magical PCs. One houserule that helps is to calculate drain by Force + modifiers rather than Force/2 + modifiers. It makes it harder to reliably cast without drain, a turning point in a magician's power.Another way to do this (albeit this requires Magic in the Shadows, if I'm not mistaken) is to take the rules for... and here I don't know the proper English term, background radiation? The stuff that comes to be through violence, pollution or magic overuse? However it is called, taking the rules for that literally limits a magician greatly as well. Because, if taken as written, the Sprawl has a background radiation (assuming that's the term) level of 1-2 practically everywhere.

Crow
2007-10-03, 09:17 PM
Background count.

I find a poor balancing factor because it just isn't fun for the mage characters.

Winterwind
2007-10-03, 09:34 PM
Background count.

I find a poor balancing factor because it just isn't fun for the mage characters.Background count. Thanks. My ShadowRun books are all in German.

And, I agree on it being a rather poor balancing factor, for this very reason, plus its arbitrarity.

The best way in my opinion, and the one we use, is a gentlemens' agreement that the magicians restrict themselves to other kinds of foci, if they take sustaining foci it's only for spells where this is not quite as unbalancing (equipment this expensive is usually not bought in our group anyway, it's either found or granted as reward), and it's understood that initiation is a climax in a character's life, something one does not do often. This solves the issue completely.

horseboy
2007-10-03, 10:21 PM
Weird, we always considered the spell lock focus to be a walking death sentence back in 2nd. There's no cover when you've got one of those on. Did they take away the ability for the enemy to channel a spell through them in 3rd? Nothing like catching the party while they're hiding in their van/around the corner with a few hellblasts to make them not want to use those any more.

Crow
2007-10-03, 10:33 PM
No, you were still a big astral beacon.

Winterwind
2007-10-03, 10:49 PM
Weird, we always considered the spell lock focus to be a walking death sentence back in 2nd. There's no cover when you've got one of those on. Did they take away the ability for the enemy to channel a spell through them in 3rd? Nothing like catching the party while they're hiding in their van/around the corner with a few hellblasts to make them not want to use those any more.Yes, they took it out. Beings in astral space can cast spells only on other things in astral space, beings in physical space can cast spells only on things in physical space. It is not possible to target a person not present on the astral plane with a fireball by targeting their focus; since active foci are of dual nature, however, it is possible to target the focus itself in order to destroy it. This will do no harm to the person wearing the focus or others, however. Physical spells cannot be casted in astral space at all (the meaning of mana/physical spell is a bit different, though). I heard the stricter seperation of astral and physical space is one of the major differences between 2nd and 3rd edition.
That's rather difficult for high level foci, and generally a horribly mean thing to do as gamemaster, given how expensive those things are.

horseboy
2007-10-03, 11:07 PM
Yes, they took it out. Beings in astral space can cast spells only on other things in astral space, beings in physical space can cast spells only on things in physical space. It is not possible to target a person not present on the astral plane with a fireball by targeting their focus; since active foci are of dual nature, however, it is possible to target the focus itself in order to destroy it. This will do no harm to the person wearing the focus or others, however. Physical spells cannot be casted in astral space at all (the meaning of mana/physical spell is a bit different, though). I heard the stricter seperation of astral and physical space is one of the major differences between 2nd and 3rd edition.
That's rather difficult for high level foci, and generally a horribly mean thing to do as gamemaster, given how expensive those things are.

Suck, no wonder they're not balanced, they took out the thing that balanced a spell lock foci. (They were always level 1, so were "disposable")More than just a beacon, they provided an "always open" channel between astral and mundane that an enemy mage could channel a spell through. Yeah, I'd just remove them from the game.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-10-03, 11:08 PM
It might be lying propaganda, but I think GURPS is the most balanced system. It still has cheese, but certainly not as much as, say, Time Stop + an orb or sphere + Forcecage = win against non huge critters.

I've seen a GURPS character that kills everything in the universe just by existing universe-wide pulses of unstoppable 1 damage millions of times a second or so.

horseboy
2007-10-03, 11:10 PM
I've seen a GURPS character that kills everything in the universe just by existing universe-wide pulses of unstoppable 1 damage millions of times a second or so.

Isn't it the system that gave us the term "Min-max"?

psychoticbarber
2007-10-03, 11:20 PM
I've seen a GURPS character that kills everything in the universe just by existing universe-wide pulses of unstoppable 1 damage millions of times a second or so.

GURPS (and Hero, the similar system that I play) requires a little more hands-on approach from the DM to ensure that things remain balanced and logical. Yes. You can build characters like that under the rules, but that doesn't make them fun or worth playing.

Winterwind
2007-10-03, 11:23 PM
Suck, no wonder they're not balanced, they took out the thing that balanced a spell lock foci. (They were always level 1, so were "disposable")More than just a beacon, they provided an "always open" channel between astral and mundane that an enemy mage could channel a spell through. Yeah, I'd just remove them from the game.I don't know what exactly they were thinking; I suppose it was either, they found it too dangerous for the players, or, they wanted to get rid of player characters assassinating people with foci from astral space. But yeah, that didn't work out so well.
Although, if one just says that there are no sustaining foci for certain spells it practically restores balance just as well. Reflex boosting and invisibility, first and foremost.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-10-03, 11:34 PM
GURPS (and Hero, the similar system that I play) requires a little more hands-on approach from the DM to ensure that things remain balanced and logical. Yes. You can build characters like that under the rules, but that doesn't make them fun or worth playing.

Well, obviously! I'm just saying that a system in which that's possible probably shouldn't be held up as the paragon of game balance.

Bosh
2007-10-03, 11:40 PM
I'm a big fan of both Dogs in the Vineyard and Spirit of the Century.

Spirit of the Century is a very good game. The skill pyramid really keeps min-maxing and one trick ponies in check. Also maneuvers help people without combat skills be useful in combat.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-10-03, 11:41 PM
Spirit of the Century is a very good game. The skill pyramid really keeps min-maxing and one trick ponies in check. Also maneuvers help people without combat skills be useful in combat.

I finally tried Spirit recently and I LOVE IT. The character creation alone is as much fun as playing some other games!

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-04, 02:20 AM
Usually that only happens when the Dragon isn't played too well...Like in D&D. But then, Shadowrun doesn't make the presumption that Dragons are invincible...or at least our group doesn't.

It's when those trolls start shooting down main battle tanks...

Anyway, there are other dragon-killing cheese methods.

You can make a physical adept focused on firearms who accepts a slightly less than one-point hit to Essence to get a smartlink and cybereyes, and before you know it, you're rolling a ridiculous boatload of dice against a target number of 2 ... at any range. With the way staging damage works, that can be enough to kill anything.

There are also some silly things you can pull off with physical adept skill bonuses to cheap-to-improve skills like stealth (which governs not only hiding and sneaking but also counterstealth awareness as a complementary skill ... and even pickpocketing!). There's nothing quite like getting 12 dice at the very start of the game in a skill when, normally, you'd be limited to 6 as an absolute maximum at the start. :smalltongue:

Satyr
2007-10-04, 02:53 AM
I think the Unisystem games made by Eden Studios (e.g. All Flesh Must Be Eaten, Witchcraft...) are worth to be mentioned here. The rules are quite good, there are no real brain hick-ups as far as I know. And the fluff is mostly fun, too. The games normally include two (or more) different templates for the character creation. They are not balanced to each other, but charakters with the same template are quite even.

Renegade Paladin
2007-10-04, 03:27 AM
Well, that stands to reason, since the Hunters were meant to be weaker. Ordinary People in Extraordinary situations, right? Their Edges are meant to even up the score given time, patience, and planning.

And werewolves SHOULD be the be-all-end-all of combat. That' s what they DO.

And a high Arete Mage can pwn any of them without even trying all that hard.

But I see your point. I just meant that the system is fairly elegant, without the preponderance of rules that make for breakage in DnD. And the nature of the system means that houseruling and improvisation are easier than in Dnd.

I've always found it to be so, anyway.
Well, I don't mind so much, really. I have my service automatic, my riot shotgun, my five dots in Investigation, and the Las Vegas Police homicide department basically at my disposal; it makes for enough utility out of combat to more than make up for it. What gets me really is when the Storyteller uses one of his high-powered NPC mages (almost universally his former player characters) as deus ex machina devices. For instance, in the very last session, I went to a lot of trouble to worm the secret of the Immortal (yes, the Highlander variety) PC out of one of the other characters, and the Storyteller summarily had one of his NPCs do a remote mind-wipe on my character so he forgot the entire conversation. :smallannoyed:

Kurald Galain
2007-10-04, 05:24 AM
As for "fluff-heavy" games vs more "crunch-heavy", bad rules are bad rules. It's become fashionable to invoke rule zero to fix them. The point of rules are to handle possible disagreements and make things easier for the GM.
My point is that a fluff-heavy game (regardless of system) tends to make unbalanced characters less apparent, since it's less of a contest than a crunch-heavy game is. It's not a matter of Rule Zero as much as a matter of rules and rolls coming up less often.

I've played plenty of sessions (WOD mostly) where we spent an evening without rolling any dice or making any tests. On the other hand, I've played plenty of sessions where we spent most of the evening in combat, rolling for initiative, attacks, saving throws, and so forth. Obviously, balance issues are going to be more apparent in the latter than in the former.

Winterwind
2007-10-04, 08:41 AM
Also, the less rules there are, the less possibilities are present how the game could be utterly broken. If the system consists of a set of attributes, a set of skills and that's it, all someone bent on breaking the system could do would be to try and obtain a skill value as high as possible in one area - in which case he just would be very good in that skill, but quite possibly not even superhumanly so. Only a multitude of interlinking options allows for monstrosities like Pun-Pun.

HidaTsuzua
2007-10-04, 09:33 AM
Well, obviously! I'm just saying that a system in which that's possible probably shouldn't be held up as the paragon of game balance.

I'm actually going to disagree here. Being able to do stupidly powerful things can be an issue only if it's not apparent at first. I mean in Hero I can do "1 pip Ranged Killing Attack (5 Active Points) Obvious Inaccessible Focus Expendable (The Universe) -1 2 Real Points" with the special effect of me throwing the universe at you. However it's immediately obvious what's going on (using a terrible weak attack that as a side effect destroys the universe). I can give myself a strength score of over 9000 in D&D as well especially if the GM isn't looking at my character sheet. I can claim I made no money on my tax forms. For similar reasons, I don't have a problem with Pun-Pun. He's extremely in your face (to be fair, the HERO issue can be found during creation while Pun-Pun is revealed during play).

The areas where rule issues are a problem is when they create warped incentives. Character creation in WoD for example creates rewards for an extremely narrow way of building character that isn't obvious from the setting (but is obvious if you do math). Batman Wizards not Pun-Pun are true balance issues. Batman wizards have a disappointedly amount of power that isn't crystal clear nor easily removed without careful review or ham-fisted DM tactics. This power changes party and setting dynamics. This doesn't mean there are phantom problems either. I can have a uncle who smoked for fifty years without lung problems. This does not mean that smoking isn't a problem for lungs.



I've played plenty of sessions (WOD mostly) where we spent an evening without rolling any dice or making any tests. On the other hand, I've played plenty of sessions where we spent most of the evening in combat, rolling for initiative, attacks, saving throws, and so forth. Obviously, balance issues are going to be more apparent in the latter than in the former.

There's nothing wrong with that (I've been in many games where sessions are "have a nice friendly chat with NPC of the week"). However that doesn't mean that the WoD rules are any good. They don't work if you try to do stuff that they are meant to do. Sure if you don't use something, it doesn't matter how useful or fragile it is. But this doesn't mean that the rules are any good. This is my problem with WoD praise. You shouldn't be crediting the rules for such games if you never used them. In fact, it should be a problem that the rules aren't being used in actual play (though is this case, you're better off without them)!

You can have social rules that work for a social RPG. It's realizing what players should and do want to do and building rules and setting around that rather than the "throw some stuff together that sounds cool and let the GM sort it out" that nearly all RPGs do.

Winterwind
2007-10-04, 09:52 AM
I once read the following in another RPG forum:

"There is a theory concerning satisfaction/dissatisfaction at the working place. This theory states that there are motivator factors, which increase satisfaction, but do nothing to decrease dissatisfaction, and hygiene factors, which decrease dissatisfaction, but do nothing to increase satisfaction.

Applied to RPGs, the game mechanics are a hygiene factor: If one doesn't even notice them while playing, they are working just right; only when they become a problem one becomes aware of them."

A bit oversimplified, but it contains a good bunch of truth, I think.

HidaTsuzua
2007-10-04, 12:16 PM
I once read the following in another RPG forum:

"There is a theory concerning satisfaction/dissatisfaction at the working place. This theory states that there are motivator factors, which increase satisfaction, but do nothing to decrease dissatisfaction, and hygiene factors, which decrease dissatisfaction, but do nothing to increase satisfaction.

Applied to RPGs, the game mechanics are a hygiene factor: If one doesn't even notice them while playing, they are working just right; only when they become a problem one becomes aware of them."

A bit oversimplified, but it contains a good bunch of truth, I think.

I agree. Rules should work towards a good roleplaying experience. Too much and they cut down on choices with arbitrary rules, too little, you flop around on unreliable arbitrary GM whim. To use Futurama (in spoiler):


God: You have to have light touch. Like a safe-cracker or pickpocket.
Bender: Or a guy who burns down bars for insurance money.
God: Yes, but only if you make it look like an electrical thing.