Balance... whatever it is

[Nightshade]

I'm mostly going to stay out of this thread, because I rather strongly disagree with a lot of the statements I'm seeing being made, and I'm just not in the mood for the giant fight it'd turn into getting into it, but I wanted to note that there's some conflation of two things going on here.

There's a difference between game balance as an attempt to keep PCs on an approximately similar footing relative to each other, and game balance intended to make sure all fights are of approximately equal difficulty and appropriate for the PCs. You can have either one without the other, and addressing one really has no connection with the other in terms of how you got about it.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

There's a difference between game balance as an attempt to keep PCs on an approximately similar footing relative to each other, and game balance intended to make sure all fights are of approximately equal difficulty and appropriate for the PCs. You can have either one without the other, and addressing one really has no connection with the other in terms of how you got about it.

Agreed. They are two separate issues that are lumped together under the same heading.

[RMS]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

There's a difference between game balance as an attempt to keep PCs on an approximately similar footing relative to each other, and game balance intended to make sure all fights are of approximately equal difficulty and appropriate for the PCs. You can have either one without the other, and addressing one really has no connection with the other in terms of how you got about it.

Agreed. While I don't need perfectly balance between PCs, I like some "reasonable" level of balance. I wouldn't make players play newbies in a group of seasoned veterans, unless the specific player liked that type of challenge. OTOH, I don't generally give someone a new character that's exactly par to everyone else in the game. In fact, in most situations like this, there has already been an appropriate NPC that a player has taken over and fleshed out: already a connection to the PCs and already has a power level that's close to the others, if not on par. (My general idea here is that I want the players to have fun. If having a lesser character isn't any fun, then I wouldn't force it.) All of this is in degrees and subjective obviously.

The flip side is that I don't tailor encounters at all in my games. That feels artificial to me. Encounters are what they are and it's up to the players/characters to judge when to negotiate, stand and fight, or run for help.

[Gnarsh]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Agreed. They are two separate issues that are lumped together under the same heading.

They are separate, but they're also related. The degree to which PCs of different power level can adventure together is going to be a function of the degree to which the GM adjusts the encounters to the power level of the PCs. It's also going to be strongly affected by the makeup of the encounters themselves.

I kinda touched on the concept of using mixed foes to allow for mixed PC powerlevels in a group. The idea being that just as it's somewhat silly to assume that you'd have 10 people traveling around who are all superpowerful runelords of their respective cults going out on a stroll somewhere, it's equally silly to assume that the random group of bad guys you run into are all identically powered as well. Most of the time, you're going to see a mixture. And to be honest, if you use a mixture of NPC foes, it's quite workable to have just a couple powerful runelord types in a group with most of the rest being a mix of initiates and perhaps somewhat beginning priests.

Assuming you have some roleplaying involved in the adventure and it's not just a series of fights to get from point A to point Z, the power level of the characters shouldn't matter that much. Everyone can contribute to some degree. Sure, we can assume that the runelords are likely to be better even at most out of combat tasks, they wont automatically be the "best" at everything. Also, we'd assume that they're the leaders, right? So they're not likely to be the guys sent off to go buy supplies for the next leg of the journey while you're stopping at that small town, right? If you have a smallish sub-plot involving activities like that along the way, you can get the lower power guys into fun and trouble without having the superpowered guys overwhelming everything.


This also depends on how large your playing group is and how many characters you play. We tend to play two characters apiece. Which allows for most players to play an experienced character and a newer character (which keeps fresh blood flowing as well). So everyone has something they can do in the big fights, but also can play around with the smaller stuff as well.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, not every fight can (or should) involve nothing but super powerful bad guys. It's reasonable that the big bad guys who are trying to take out the party aren't going to turn down a bunch of weaker cannon-fodder type minions if they've got them. The broo villiage you attack isn't going to be full of nothing but Ralzakark's finest footsoldiers either. And even within a single cohesive opposing group of bad guys, there will be some who are powerful leader types, and other who are just average followers. Obviously, you shouldn't contrive this too much, but I've found that larger combats tend to "flow" pretty well towards ensuring that everyone fights something appropriately tough. If for no other reason then the really nasty bad guys will be sweeping the weaker players aside like nothing until someone tough comes up to challenge them. And the weaker guys? Well, they can get patched up and either help out, or hold off some of the weaker minions in the fight.

More powerful characters tend to fight their way through the wall'o'minions first, meaning they're usually the ones to break through and charge the big bad guy(s). Sometimes, simply putting a lot of weak foes between the party and a small number of much tougher ones works wonderfully at ensuring that everyone is "useful" and participates fully in a battle. And given the cowardly nature of most chaos foes, isn't that the way they'd likely fight?


I've just never found this to be too much trouble to manage as a GM. That's not to say I don't set restrictions in terms of which characters can/should go on an adventure. But I'm ok with a pretty wide range. Restrictions usually have more to do with the top level of the bad guys they'll be facing then with any specific problems with regard to balancing the group itself. If the main bad guy in my adventure is a small time slave-trader causing problems for a local village, with the main obstacles being finding them and dealing with his handful of hired toughs, allowing someone to bring his character who just happens to be the best swordsman on 5 continents, and who's resume includes "accidentally destroyed an entire plane of existence while on my way to doing something really big!" probably would be overkill...

[Rurik]

Not much for me to add to what Gnarsh has said other than that our experiences are similiar here.

It really is possible to spin a good tale about Bilbo and some Dwarves and Gandalf even if they aren't all balanced out perfectly.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Rurik

Not much for me to add to what Gnarsh has said other than that our experiences are similiar here.

It really is possible to spin a good tale about Bilbo and some Dwarves and Gandalf even if they aren't all balanced out perfectly.

I'd say that you probably get a better tale that way. A lot of the balance issues are combat related, and a hold over from the hobby's origins as at outgrowth of wargaming, where balance is vital.

But the storytelling and interactive play origins or RPGs go back far further and generally don't involve carbon copies adventuring together. And difference is a gap that can be exploited to "unbalance" a game.

Historically many bad-asses were taken down by people who didn't match up to them in terms of skills or abilities but who beat them through luck, good planning, or just catching them unaware.

I've had groups take out much larger, more powerful and better skilled opponents that way.

[RMS]

Originally Posted by Rurik

It really is possible to spin a good tale about Bilbo and some Dwarves and Gandalf even if they aren't all balanced out perfectly.

You do realize that there is a difference between having some balance and "balanced out perfectly" don't you. I (at least) have never argued for point-for-point balance. I'm simply saying that I'll adjust the starting point of new characters so that they have something to contribute to the campaign and are fun for the players to play. In a game with 5 rune lords, and a large retinue of NPC followers, if one character is killed then I would allow the player to choose a character that had enough ability to contribute something to the game.

Ironically, your example supports exactly this approach. Why is Bilbo chosen? He's selected because he has a (supposed) skill that the dwarves lack, even if he is overall a less expienced, less powerful character.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by RMS

Ironically, your example supports exactly this approach. Why is Bilbo chosen? He's selected because he has a (supposed) skill that the dwarves lack, even if he is overall a less expienced, less powerful character.

I'd say the his example supports the reverse. Bilbo actually didn't have the skills he was hired on for (a burglar). In the end his value was in common sense, an ability to think through problems, and a willingness to negotiate and solve problems through means other than bloodshed. Abilities that all gamers could benefit from having.

Of course having the GM literally dump a ring of invisibility on him didn't hurt. And that is another break from the "game balance" mode of play. Give a low level character a high powered artifact.

[RMS]

I'm moving this response over here, per request:

Originally Posted by Rurik

The thing I think being overlooked is that most games have experience systems that cause less experienced characters to progress faster than more experiencd characters. It has certainly been my experience, and that of others who've used the new characters create, well, new characters approach, is that the 'noob' very quickly progresses in experience and ability - it is not like they are forever crippled. Right off the bat they have access to better equipment and magic than a true 'new' character and their skills advance quickly. A starting RQ character with starting cash as per the rules is just not on the same level as a starting RQ character with access to plate armor, casters who can boost them/protect them/heal them, and have readily available spell teachers and trainers. Their capabilities grow rapidly.

I don't disagree with this. I just pick somewhere inbetween straight-out-of-the-book noob character and point-for-point balanced characters because:

A. Most players want this and expect it. RPGing should be fun, and players feel better if they get to start closer to the general level of the campaign.

B. It feels more logical to me that a group of experienced people would look for someone with some level of experience to fill the void. I can force a noob into the game, but an experienced character makes more sense in most cases in my experience.

[RMS]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

I'd say the his example supports the reverse. Bilbo actually didn't have the skills he was hired on for (a burglar). In the end his value was in common sense, an ability to think through problems, and a willingness to negotiate and solve problems through means other than bloodshed. Abilities that all gamers could benefit from having.

Sticking with the example here, Bilbo does have an advantage. The fun part is that mechanically his advantage is superior INT rather than superior (burgular) skills. I'd say he does have some superior skills in sneak/hide, but they don't come out until later in the story.

Sure, player's ability can be an equalizer, but it shouldn't have to rely strictly on this.

Of course having the GM literally dump a ring of invisibility on him didn't hurt. And that is another break from the "game balance" mode of play. Give a low level character a high powered artifact.

Then there's that....but I prefer not to do that sort of thing on a regular basis myself. It seems too artificial.