Balance... whatever it is

[Rurik]

Also moved from over there...

Originally Posted by RMS

Telling a player to essentially run a stablehand with a group of rune lords (sticking with our ongoing example), when even the associate NPCs are strong initiates, seems like punishment to me. When your new PC is outclassed by the NPC followers of the other PCs, it doesn't sound like much fun to me.

People keep throwing around stablehand and farmer as if you must start that way. A starting character in RQ3, or Stormbringer, or many games is just not equivelent to a farmer or stablehand.

Originally Posted by RMS

Or an Eurmal follower....

Oh god, just kill those right away...

On the other issues, without extensive quoting, It has always been my belief that forced balance is artificial, though you and I seem to differ by degrees. You would start a new character at in a 10th level game at say 5th level, which is still a disadvantage. Honestly many of the D&D games I played in started everyone at 3rd or 5th level anyway.

But enough with D&D analogies - who plays that system anyway? (Well, OK, I just started in a d20 Thieves World, but it is literally the first time in 20 years).

One difference is even rune levels I don't usually run a bunch of NPC's as the retinue. The party is the players, and maybe 1-2 NPC's come and go. Honestly, once a character reaches Runelord and Priest level normally all their time would be spent doing mundane boring cult stuff, and really should retire from adventuring. PC Runelords and Priests are therefore kind of oddballs anyway, and I don't attach a bodygaurd of NPC's to them while they are adventuring - I just prefer the party to be mostly the PC's - excepting situations where they are leading raiding parties or armies etc. etc.
[/quote]

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by RMS

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.[/quote]

But if you rely on it or not it is a big factor. And one reason why balance doesn't really exist. A Character can have all sorts of avantages on paper, but more often than not Intellegice will win out. One of my early Dms used to let certain players start with more powerful and better equipped characters than others. When asked why the rest of us couldn't have such stuff, he'd reply "Because you only need one!" Sure enough, two sessons later when the latest powerhouses ended up dead the rest of us ended up with some neat stuff.

In a 3E D&D campaign I was in, I took out a 8th level barbarian with a 1st level farmer. Entirely because the guy who played the barbarian was an idiot. He was part of a group that had actually rescued us from some monsters. Yet everytime he spoke to us, he said he was going to sell us into slavery, rather than he was rescuing us. Well, when a foe had him down and out, my not to bright character made sure he didn't recover, so we wouldn't be sold as slaves! I did however, patch up the prest who said he was there to rescue us.

Originally Posted by RMS

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

It is too artificial. Even in the Hobbit/LOTR it was the ring working it's way to Sauron. It sort of like Luke and Leia being siblings, or the entire party gets knocked out with no chance of escape or victory. Every GM can pull it off once in awile, but don't make a habit of it.

Still, I have no problems putting powerful magic items into the hands of "low-level" characters. Worked for King Arthur.

[RMS]

Originally Posted by Rurik

People keep throwing around stablehand and farmer as if you must start that way. A starting character in RQ3, or Stormbringer, or many games is just not equivelent to a farmer or stablehand.

I have two answers for this. First, the farmer is by far the most common result for base character creation in either game and is relatively inept to begin with in most adventuring type skills. Second, it's just a metaphore for a character who's basically utility to the group is to stay behind and make sure the mounts don't wander off.

On the other issues, without extensive quoting, It has always been my belief that forced balance is artificial, though you and I seem to differ by degrees. You would start a new character at in a 10th level game at say 5th level, which is still a disadvantage. Honestly many of the D&D games I played in started everyone at 3rd or 5th level anyway.

Interestingly, I start most RQ games with "experienced veterans", specifically because I'm not a huge fan of advancement driven play, but that's really a different subject.

But enough with D&D analogies - who plays that system anyway? (Well, OK, I just started in a d20 Thieves World, but it is literally the first time in 20 years).

D&D is just easy to compare due to the levels, but of course in BRP nothing is quite so distinct. Also, oldschool D&D is far less balanced than new D&D...and as I've mentioned elsewhere I haven't played any D&D since about 1983 or 1984, either!

One difference is even rune levels I don't usually run a bunch of NPC's as the retinue. The party is the players, and maybe 1-2 NPC's come and go.

I do since I can't imagine a rune lord running around by himself. It just makes sense to me that they start aquiring followers - not to mention that they can afford basic support types anyway. They're supposed to be leaders. In fact, someone who can't attract a following (for whatever reason) wouldn't advance to rune level in mainstream cults in my campaign. Characters have to do more than just meet the basic mechanics. There has to be enough support, in all forms, to support them being promoted to a rune level character.

Honestly, once a character reaches Runelord and Priest level normally all their time would be spent doing mundane boring cult stuff, and really should retire from adventuring. PC Runelords and Priests are therefore kind of oddballs anyway, and I don't attach a bodygaurd of NPC's to them while they are adventuring - I just prefer the party to be mostly the PC's - excepting situations where they are leading raiding parties or armies etc. etc.

The first part depends on the cult IMO. A rune lord or priest should embody the god. A Sword of Humakt or Storm Kahn or similar action oriented cult should definitely be involved in regular dangerous situations. I can't see such characters settling into a "desk job" until they are forced by physical fraility. Being a good Wind Lord should involved a certain amount of wandering around and getting into random dangerous just because... Note: my campaigns rarely consist of "adventure after adventure", but rather involve a small handful of adventures per year with weeks or seasons of mundane "downtime" inbetween, so our ideas might be very much in line here.

I don't "give" rune lords a bunch of guards. In contrast, their adventures should generally be cult missions, which naturally has them leading cult members into action. At that point, my players are typically setting up large expeditions to do things, involving significant support: both cult and hired help to fill niches. It's just natural for them to aquire various followers over time. This is an organic thing. I don't just hand them a bunch of followers as a reward for gaining rune status. (Aside: in my longest running game, they specifically spent several years of game time leading a large army, and we zoomed in/out of the strategic and tactical level. If a PC died here, the player would have most likely developed one of the powerful NPCs leading various segments of the army. Of course if that didn't appeal to the play, I would have allowed them something else, so long as it was reasonable.)

[RMS]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

But if you rely on it or not it is a big factor. And one reason why balance doesn't really exist. A Character can have all sorts of avantages on paper, but more often than not Intellegice will win out. One of my early Dms used to let certain players start with more powerful and better equipped characters than others. When asked why the rest of us couldn't have such stuff, he'd reply "Because you only need one!" Sure enough, two sessons later when the latest powerhouses ended up dead the rest of us ended up with some neat stuff.

In a 3E D&D campaign I was in, I took out a 8th level barbarian with a 1st level farmer. Entirely because the guy who played the barbarian was an idiot. He was part of a group that had actually rescued us from some monsters. Yet everytime he spoke to us, he said he was going to sell us into slavery, rather than he was rescuing us. Well, when a foe had him down and out, my not to bright character made sure he didn't recover, so we wouldn't be sold as slaves! I did however, patch up the prest who said he was there to rescue us.

From reading this post and your posts in the past, you have far more of this disparity in player competence than I've ever had the displeasure of witnessing. In general, I've had very good, essentially equally skilled players. I've tended to run small groups for long periods of time, and have not look for additional players, or gradually have weeded out the poorer ones. I accept your experience, but it isn't something I can base any of my opinions off of since it's so far outside my experience.

Still, I have no problems putting powerful magic items into the hands of "low-level" characters. Worked for King Arthur.

It just depends on the situation for me. I've done it, but just don't like it as a general answer.

[Trifletraxor]

Originally Posted by Rurik

I really am curious here as to how you handle new characters after player death. If a campaign started a year ago, and everyone started with say 200 skill points, and someone dies, do they get 400 skill points at chargen because that is roughly where everyone else is in the game? I really am curious, because as I've said, I have never gamed that way.

If it's a low power group, I let the player start with one of the more combat oriented occupations if he wants, then give him a full INT of spirit spells, and maybe a family heirloom (crystal, iron sword, or something like that). If the players want to start with a non-combatant occupation, I'll give him more skills.

In a high-power group, more skills and items. Non-combatants might start as acolytes or priest. Combatants might start with superior races.

As RMS, I tend to go with characters of lower power, but not newbies either.

To me, RPG's are just as much game as they are role playing and collective storytelling. There should be some risk/reward. The risk of dying is starting over.

With a new character you have no attachement too, with inferior loot. The risk is high enough, the players are usually pretty devastated when they die - especially if it was a character they had played long.

SGL.

[Atgxtg]

[quote=RMS;7549]From reading this post and your posts in the past, you have far more of this disparity in player competence than I've ever had the displeasure of witnessing. In general, I've had very good, essentially equally skilled players. I've tended to run small groups for long periods of time, and have not look for additional players, or gradually have weeded out the poorer ones. I accept your experience, but it isn't something I can base any of my opinions off of since it's so far outside my experience. {/quote]

I wish I had been so lucky. Virtually every RPG I even ran or played in had players with a wide spread in capability. I've seen guys whose ability was damned near pyschic, and other who were so dense I'm surprised they made it to the gaming table (in fact, I knew one guy who consistently showed up at the wrong house and the neighbor had to tell him week after week). Even the conventions I've been to I tended to see a wide mix. Usually there was one or two people who I wished I could have in my regular group, one or two people I wished I'd never met, and the rest somewhere in between. I rarely had the luxury of a solid group. At best I had a good core of about 3-4 players for a time, but usually it was more like 2, with 2-4 others.

Originally Posted by RMS

It just depends on the situation for me. I've done it, but just don't like it as a general answer.

Ditto. I don't use too many "general" answers anyway. It tends to limit options and thinking. That is sort of how we ended up going down this thread. Some people believe that things must balance. Things usually translating as combat ability. But depending on the GM, player characters, and nature of the adventures being run, that isn't necessarily the case.

I think the key factor is that each player character needs to be able to regularly contribute to the game. Balanced characters and encounters is merely one way to try and accomplish that. Give characters niches, and character classes are niches to some extent, is another way to try and ensure that each character contributes.

The low level character in the high level group or vise versa is quite workable in BRP. Less so in D&D due to increasing hit points and damage. Basically the low level guys can't take the fireballs, but if they make it thorough a session or two the level rapidly. In BRP it isn't such a problem. Two goblins keep the experienced fighters busy, yet a single gobbie is a challenge for a fledgling farmer.

Any RPG where a single hit can kill or incapacitate has some built in balance.

But balance is but one method, and not the only one. Just like combat is only one activity in an RPG, and shouldn't dominate to the exclusion of all else.

[raymond_turney]

Hi,

The issue of "balance" depends mostly on who your players are and why they play the game. Also, what the characters do.

We are all agreed that it is important that the players have fun. Some players are very competitive and want to be heroes all the time. If a player derives most of his enjoyment from being the center of the game in combat, and having the best optimized character, it is very important that his character be "balanced" relative to the others. It is particularly important if you have two or more competitive players. Other players, oddly enough, actually like weak characters. I felt it was more interesting to try to figure out how to accomplish something with Lyra {a rather new agey weak Nathan} than to do a better job of optimizing my character than one of our game's three wargamers. One of the wargamers is just a much better wargamer than I am, and if my character were theoretically the equal of his in fighting power, he would have twice the impact on the fights that I do.

Which is to say that "balance" is a tool for insuring that players enjoy the game. Some groups have 2-4 competitive players who spend a fair amount of time discussing the comparative effectiveness of their characters as killing machines. For these groups, balance is very important. Other groups don't have any wargamers who like power gaming, and for these groups, balance is less important. In these groups, the artificiality of starting high level characters may outweigh the advantages of making sure that the characters are of relatively even combat power.

Likewise, the issue of balancing encounters to PC's is an issue of player expectation. If the players know that some encounters will simply outclass their characters, and that they are expected to identify these encounters and run away, balance is less of an issue. Players know their characters will sometimes be outclassed, and that unassing the area is always an option. If the players think that all encounters are expected to be tuned for maximum dramatic impact, they may choose to attack an entire party of monsters which are individually as tough as the entire PC group. They will then feel betrayed when, with average die rolls, the monsters flatten them.

Oddly, wargamers are more relaxed about being expected to identify whether or not they are tough enough to beat an enemy than extreme role players {actors} are. Actors often expect the encounters to be dramatically scripted, and feel that there is no point having encounters that do not fit the script.

From a design perspective, a system should provide the tools so that a GM who needs to balance his games can; without imposing balance on GM's and groups who are not the kind of wargamers/powergamers for which this is most important. This is why game designers need to be aware of the techniques for balancing a game; and make it possible to use them; without worrying about building "balance" into the system itself.

[Rurik]

Originally Posted by RMS

I have two answers for this. First, the farmer is by far the most common result for base character creation in either game and is relatively inept to begin with in most adventuring type skills. Second, it's just a metaphore for a character who's basically utility to the group is to stay behind and make sure the mounts don't wander off.

I long ago gave up the random background tables. The novelty of playing farmers did indeed wear off in short order. Also, it seems based heavily on real world demographics, but certainly certain backgrounds are more prone to adventuring than others - and farmer just sin't one that comes to mind (unless of course someone wanted to play a farmer). I've typically allowed either choosing background or more often used the assign a certain number of skill points yourself approach. In RQ3 if I recall right your age roll has a major effect on starting skills in the default method, which again I have not used in a while.

I like the MRQ chargen approach a lot. Choose a background, choose a profession, assign your free points.

[Rurik]

Originally Posted by raymond_turney

Oddly, wargamers are more relaxed about being expected to identify whether or not they are tough enough to beat an enemy than extreme role players {actors} are. Actors often expect the encounters to be dramatically scripted, and feel that there is no point having encounters that do not fit the script.

I have attributed the acceptance of (A) Player Death and (B) Unbalanced Parties in my play groups style to a strong wargamer background.

Wargammers accept a couple of things. One is that not every session is fulfilling. It can kind of suck when you spend a whole evening or two in a game and your side of the table ends up losing - and some losses are uglier than others. So why do people invest so much time and effort into a pastime that can be so dissapointing? Because it is that much more fun when you win. You have accomplished something substantial, and the bad times make the good times all the better.

So no matter how much role playing you put behind it, a wargamer knows at some level that the little figure on the table is still above all a game piece, and very well can die at any moment.

And though they are not playing against the other players (ususally), they accept that not every day is their day in the sun, but if they play well, they will get their turn.

Though really, I'm a novice at this psychology behind game styles thing, those are just some thoughts on how a particular style (namely mine) could have well been fostered by a wargaming influence.

[Kloster]

Originally Posted by Rurik

I long ago gave up the random background tables. The novelty of playing farmers did indeed wear off in short order. Also, it seems based heavily on real world demographics, but certainly certain backgrounds are more prone to adventuring than others - and farmer just sin't one that comes to mind (unless of course someone wanted to play a farmer). I've typically allowed either choosing background or more often used the assign a certain number of skill points yourself approach. In RQ3 if I recall right your age roll has a major effect on starting skills in the default method, which again I have not used in a while.

I like the MRQ chargen approach a lot. Choose a background, choose a profession, assign your free points.

Don't forget that in RQ III, all chargen rolls and tables are described with 'Choose or Roll', including the age!!
If you don't want to play a farmer, don't roll, and choose something else.

The way we play it is Choose.
If the GM don't validate your choice, you have the possibility to either make another choice or force a roll, and everybody (player and GM) has to accept the result of the dices. In almost 20 years, I've never seen a dice for this, as everybody prefers choosing something that fits his style and expectations (and we've seen farmers).

Runequestement votre,

Kloster