Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Hotaru no Hishou. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Game balance
Topic Started: 3 Dec 2008, 10:21 (310 Views)
Ankhanu
Member Avatar
Dark Lord
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The design of a game system and how well it maintains internal balance is important to how the game feels. Many systems, notably D&D 3.x and 4e, strive to attain a complete balance power/ability between characters (classes, abilities, etc) and adversaries (monsters, antagonists, puzzles, what have you), such that players and situations are perfectly scaled to one another's abilities and difficulties. To many, maintaining balance is an extremely important part of a gaming system; having players who are supposed to be equal in experience with unequal degrees of ability, and challenges that may simply be far beyond their capabilities can ruin their game.

There are game systems, however, where balance is ignored or simply a minor consideration; certain character types are inherently weaker or more powerful than others, some encounters are simply too tough to tackle, etc. While this can lead to some frustration, both in terms of failure and in terms of some players feeling slighted by the presence of characters more capable than their own, there are some advantages to playing unbalanced systems. The first advantage that I can think of is the development of some realism within the setting or system... I mean, really, some people or situations are simply more powerful than others of similar experience levels. It may also preserve elements of an established setting that might be lost or glossed over with the imposition of balance. The authors at dungeonmastering.com recently sent out an email to their mailing list covering 5 things they miss about D&D 2e, which included a comment on game balance:

"DungeonMastering.com 'Top 5 Things to Miss About D&D 2nd Edition'"
 
3. Unbalance:
At times it felt like 2nd edition had thrown up it’s hands and given up on attempting to manage power. Players weren’t balanced against each other, they weren’t well balanced against the monsters that would have to fight and some abilities just didn’t seem managed at all. This was certainly frustrating at times, particularly for low level wizards or when you think you’re up against something you probably can’t beat. I didn’t like it back then but I remember it fondly now. It was actually realistic that way, sometimes a player would run wild across the weak but sometimes he would have to run away. A person who could turn into any animal really did have an awesome power which was not restricted by some rather strange and arbitrary rules. It certainly had negatives but a part of me likes the way that the universe was not constructed to be just challenging enough for however strong I happen to be.


West End Games' Star Wars RPG (d6) is another game system that pays only passing consideration to game balance. A common complaint with the system stems from the way the Force is handled; early, inexperienced characters incorporating the Force are extremely weakened compared to non-Force characters. Later in the game they far surpass regular characters in power as they can tap deeper into the Force to augment their abilities, and, if not handled properly, can become virtual gods.
I would argue, however, that this lack of balance is integral to the game setting. The Star Wars universe as we experience it in film and print, demonstrates this sort of power imbalance throughout. Some species are simply more powerful than others, some characters are more skillful than others, and Force users are extremely powerful once they learn to develop their abilities. Imposing some sort of balance to the setting abolishes much of its flavour. It is for this reason that I never could reconcile game systems like the Wizards of the Coast Star Wars RPG; equal power and character levels just didn't seem to jive with the setting, quelling much of its appeal.

What other game systems strive towards balance, and which toss it to the wind? What are your experiences and which do you prefer?
In Real Life ™, people who aim to maximize their potential for lethality are called "dangerous psychotics" and are typically avoided by everyone who isn't forced to endure their company until someone has the opportunity to put them away or else put them down. No one likes that guy. Don't play that guy.

Donate to Ankhanu Press
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neraeos
Member Avatar
Council of Darkness
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I prefer to be a game-master in a balanced system, nearly 100% of the time. That being said, I am talking about balance between characters; monsters and adversaries are less important.

In any game where there is more than one player, each of those players should feel useful, or there is less purpose in that player being there. The shorter the play period of the campaign, the more important this is (e.g. does being a really terribly weak character in early levels and a really powerful bad-ass character in higher levels really make sense, if the average length of a campaign is only a couple of levels?). One could argue that playing a weaker character is a form of advanced roleplaying, and it could easily be; but mechanically, it also requires other characters to compensate in terms of mechanical toughness, so to speak.

This is where Star Wars makes less sense to me as a cooperative roleplaying game. I agree that making jedi as powerful as normal people is not a good idea, and detracts from the setting. Where I think we differ, is that while we agree that the lack of balance is necessary in the setting, I am of the opinion that there should be no lack of balance internally in a party, so that everyone present can feel equally useful and equally have fun. My solution would simply be to deny the ability of a character to be a jedi. This removes the Marty Stu quality of jedi from the game, and puts them into the area of rightfully exalted NPC.

Where party balance is not so important to me, is when you simply don't have a party. This is what makes the single-player Star Wars games so much fun; you're generally stronger than everyone else, so you can rip through imperial troopers after a hard day at work. In the end, maybe we should start treating jedi-play Star Wars as more suited to single-player play.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ankhanu
Member Avatar
Dark Lord
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
"neraeos"
 
In any game where there is more than one player, each of those players should feel useful, or there is less purpose in that player being there. The shorter the play period of the campaign, the more important this is (e.g. does being a really terribly weak character in early levels and a really powerful bad-ass character in higher levels really make sense, if the average length of a campaign is only a couple of levels?). One could argue that playing a weaker character is a form of advanced roleplaying, and it could easily be; but mechanically, it also requires other characters to compensate in terms of mechanical toughness, so to speak.

This is where Star Wars makes less sense to me as a cooperative roleplaying game. I agree that making jedi as powerful as normal people is not a good idea, and detracts from the setting. Where I think we differ, is that while we agree that the lack of balance is necessary in the setting, I am of the opinion that there should be no lack of balance internally in a party, so that everyone present can feel equally useful and equally have fun.


This is certainly true if one takes the same sort of approach to all characters. I don't think that other characters will have to compensate for another character's weakness if that player is clever. Power differences can often be negated by taking a less than straight forward approach to a given situation... though I do recognize this isn't always possible.

The campaign length is definitely a factor to consider if there are going to be imbalances... also the player maturity (whole party) and ability to deal with the roles that are inherent in having strength or weakness relative to the rest of the party. Not everyone can handle being "less useful" (ie. lower statted) than others... and some can't tactfully play a stronger character without making the others feel like they're lesser. It IS also a challenge for the person running the game to make appropriate challenges for the party that minimize the chances of both players becoming dissatisfied with possible inability or an excess of ability, and to create situations where the individual strengths can come through, even for the weak characters.

"neraeos"
 
My solution would simply be to deny the ability of a character to be a jedi. This removes the Marty Stu  quality of jedi from the game, and puts them into the area of rightfully exalted NPC.


This is actually not uncommon, for multiple reasons. Some restrict the use of Jedi simply due to the era of play; ie. Jedi are virtually unknown in the Imperial/Rebellion eras, and they don't want to screw with that continuity. Some restrict the use of Jedi to maintain more character balance, removing the confounding supernatural element. Others, like you, would prefer that they be high powered NPCs, the things of mystery and awe.

Balancing the sense of mystery inherent in that sort of powerful element and the desire of players to experience the ability to command that sense of mystery is a tough one however. On one hand "everyone" wants to be a Jedi, to do those crazy things, on the other hand, allowing them to do so cheapens the concepts behind it from the curious to the every-day. In a setting such as Star Wars during the Imperial era, however, there are some built in setting factors that can help control the abuse of the power; for example, Jedi are hunted and anyone overtly demonstrating Force ability will probably come under the scrutiny of Imperial Inquisitors and anyoe who simply wants the prestige associated with taking down a Jedi (ie. Mercs, Pirates and Bounty Hunters), making life all the more difficult.
In Real Life ™, people who aim to maximize their potential for lethality are called "dangerous psychotics" and are typically avoided by everyone who isn't forced to endure their company until someone has the opportunity to put them away or else put them down. No one likes that guy. Don't play that guy.

Donate to Ankhanu Press
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Everything else · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Black Water created by tiptopolive of the Zetaboards Theme Zone