Game Balance

[CRMcNeill]

A regular argument against rule changes is how a proposed rule upsets "game balance". I was recently prepping for a Rifts game, and I came across the following (Rifts Main Book, Ultimate Edition, page 73), which I feel is worthy of discussion here:

[Dromdarr_Alark]

I agree that equal power levels are not required to make a game fun.

I am personally attached to games that do not force game balance on the players (basically, anything not 4th ed DnD).

The game takes place in a dynamic universe. There are people who are more powerful than the players, and the players can excel beyond other players in certain areas. It is just like real life.

If a player is concerned that he or she cannot compare to the other characters in combat, then I ask why that player did not invest in combat skill or equipment. The answer is usually, "My character prefers diplomacy and intrigue over fighting," which leads me to ask, "Well, what did you expect?"

The same goes the other way around.

There are some players who become myopic with a certain group of skills and forget to raise other skills. I remember another player in a Dark Heresy game who had a 60 fellowship (basically epic-level social skills) and wielded a pair of revolvers in combat, while the rest of the group was clad in carapace armor and toting plasma guns and assault cannons. He complained that he couldn't keep up in combat. Players like that need extra guidance or accommodation so that they don't get frustrated.

Also, adversaries should not all be an even fight for the players. There will always be a bigger fish, and it is good that the players know that the bigger fish can appear at any moment. That way they don't get so cocksure that they think they can blast whomever they want.

I'll get off my soapbox now...
_________________
"I still wouldn't have a roll for it - but that's just how I roll."

[Jedi Skyler]

I'm VERY glad you posted that excerpt.

While I believe that every game needs to be balanced, I agree wholeheartedly that this balance doesn't necessarily come through every character having the same stats.

The argument that 'non-Jedi are left with nothing to do' is, quite honestly, the problem of the GM. It's up to them to make scenarios that will play to EVERYONE'S strengths.

And sometimes, even though the Jedi in your game will have overlapping skills with other characters, sometimes that means it's the Jedi who has to sit on his hands for a while and do nothing.

Don't believe me? Case in point: RotJ. The scene: the shuttle Tyderium, heading through the Imperial fleet to go down to the forest moon of Endor. Sure, the father of the New Jedi Order was on board that shuttle. But what was he doing? Sitting in the passenger seat, not doing a darn thing. Han Solo was flying, and Chewie was co-piloting.

Or, if you don't believe that any of the other characters will have anything to do when a Jedi is around? How about the scene on board Jabba's sail barge? Luke is busy fending off half of Jabba's goons; he's too busy to take the steps necessary to destroy the barge. So Leia has to aim the deck gun and fire it.

The point is, you might have a Jedi or two in the group. You might not. But if you do, then it's the GM's responsibility to craft the game so that it encompasses ALL the characters. If it's not doing so, then the players have a legitimate concern, one they should bring to the GM's attention. TACTFULLY. A GM has a lot of responsibility; they're juggling a lot of issues all at once, and they deserve to not be b**** out. Unless, of course, they're not listening to their players.

If you're trying to equalize characters, it can be done many different ways. Jedi characters have to either sacrifice Attribute Dice at creation (except when the GM decides otherwise), or pump a LOT of CPs into gaining their Force skills. Or perhaps the Jedi character has to go through a LOT in order to procure and/or construct a lightsaber, a weapon that is very powerful and, when combined with Lightsaber Combat, greatly more so.

However, limiting the Jedi character is not the only way to make things more even. The other characters can be given a bonus in Skill Points at creation, or given some phat lewt to help balance their abilities with those of the Jedi.

I won't even get into good roleplaying vs. power gaming.

Bottom line is that, if you've got good players, it won't matter so much. If you've got a good GM, it'll matter even less.

[garhkal]

Correct. There has to be some sort of balance, where one pc or another is not so overwhelmingly ahead of the rest, but balance in the means of everyone has the same stats is not what people go for.
I have had games where some pcs had an average of 4d in combat skills (but around 7-8d in tech skills), while the rest were a mix. They were still balanced as a group cause they had the same # of dice improvements with one another.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[CRMcNeill]

[CRMcNeill]

[Tupteq]

My players are kind of power players and they all like combat, so to keep game balanced I keep watch on their stats. Sometimes I'm disallowing some skill improvement to just keep the balance of the game. There are also situations where I intervene helping a player that "stayed behind" (providing useful gadget, or giving few times 1CP more at the end of adventure etc.).

Talking about Jedi, I changed character creation that force skills are not exchanged by attribute dice 1 to 1, but 3 to 1, so for 1D of attribute player have 3D to spend on force powers. This way Jedi aren't so crippled and are more universal. On the other hand, learning of force skills cost always like an advanced skill (not matter if character has a teacher or not), so Jedi start from slightly better point, but learn slower. I also reduced bonuses from LSC power
From my observations with rules above Jedi is a little bit behind the ordinary character, but has unique skills that compensate his lacks.

If I'm concerned that my players are too focused on specific skills (although above 7D this problems usually disappears), I'm starting to ask players to roll their lower ranked skills, this usually works (players notice their lacks and raise skills). Sometimes I'm also making discounts for some skills (1CP usually suffices), this works especially well if a PC did something spectacular with low-ranked skill (I'm giving him discount and he usually raises the skill still being under impression of his action).

If I want to discourage a player from rising skill I'm asking for spending time on training or I'm proposing raising specialization instead of full skill ("you only used blaster pistol during last session, so you may raise a specialization, if you want to raise blaster, then you should train a bit at least with a rifle").

Once again, all above works with my (power) players, not sure how it would work with different types of players.

[garhkal]

[CRMcNeill]

[Quetzacotl]

Characters should be balanced.
Everyone can do everything equality is, of course, the easiest kind of balance, but why bother playing a game like this to begin with, why even invent rules for that? It's just moronic and boring.

There should always be as great a diversity as possible in characters, so that one character can shine under the right circumstances, while the others are just there, supporting that one or not doing anything at all, because they can't do anything usefull in this circumstance.

As already said, it's the responsibility of the GM to provide scenarios of that kind, so that everyone can shine at some point.

Some people are Stronger in one regard, they might even be stronger in several parts where other characters only excell in a few, but that's just how it is. If the players are not selfish and unfair, everyone still can have fun.


Tho, personally, I don't like the approach of "limiting characters because they are to strong". I much more prefer the other way around: "strengthening characters that are to weak".
Limiting always feels like "you have this incredibly toy here, but you can't have much fun with it because you're only allowed to play with it 5 minutes a day and only if you're in a specific location". Does that sound fun to anyone here?


And I agree with garhkal, there is no reason to give non force-sensitive / non jedi characters a boost in terms of skills.
They are fine the way they are!
By the rules, force users have to sacrifice attribute dice and skill dice in order to get their Force Skills, but only on a very low level. So low, in fact, that they can't use most of their powers (or only when they are incredibly lucky) at the beginning.
When we recently played two Adventures with SW v2 R&E, we decided to increase the Skill dice (to 15 instead of 7) and increase the maximum (3 instead of 2 skill dice can be used).
What was the result?
The non-Jedi Characters clearly and obviously out-powered the Jedi characters. They where much better in a fight and they were much better in the skill area that they wanted to be good with (our pilot was very good with the blaster and could fly the ship nearly perfectly, the "hunter" was good with blasters as well and couldn't be detected by enemies who didn't have an above average perception or search).
Even when we looked how it would be in the future, the result always was "Jedi can do some cool stuff the non-Jedi couldn't, but the non-Jedi would always be better in their own area of expertise then the Jedi".
So y increasing that gap even more by giving them more skill dice or any kind of "power boost", they can already compete with the Jedi, even out-power them at the beginning!

[CRMcNeill]

Because you haven't seen the way I augment Jedi. The various rules and powers I have suggested are scattered throughout the archives of the Forum, and while I haven't incorporated all of them, they combine to make Jedi much more capable characters when starting out, and they only ramp up from there.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[Quetzacotl]

[CRMcNeill]

[Quetzacotl]

That might be the case, but I am purposely only referring to the RAW, since that is what everyone knows.

Yeah, when you increase one part, you might also increase another. Thats completely fine.

[DougRed4]

Great subject, and I always enjoy discussing it.

Too many games make an emphasis on balance, and I think this is (generally) a good thing for the novice GM (or one not very experienced with a particular game). But the key is to make sure all characters get an equal chance to shine. This could be allowing them to have the spotlight (if they desire it) or giving them the opportunity to do things (excelling at what their character should be able to do well).

One point on Luke in the shuttle to Endor. He not only wasn't doing anything, he was actually almost a liability ("I shouldn't have come", he said). There's times (as some have mentioned) that the Jedi do draw more attention, so I plan to have more attention shown my party's way depending on how much our Jedi uses his Force powers (and how he uses them).

The Jedi do have a number of things that balance them out, and if they're role-played well, there's a number of limitations already built in. Our (lone) Jedi just used Battle Meditation (only the second time he's ever used it) to rout Imperial forces. I didn't even feel it was inappropriate, but the Jedi player was really bothered by it, and I don't think he's likely to do it again (at least not without very much considering what he's doing). Built-in (role-playing) restrictions like this can serve to really balance out the fact that - in some ways - the Jedi can be more powerful than the others. I'm actually okay with having him increase his other attributes (he was really handicapped when we did character creation), justifying it as that it took awhile for him to bounce back to "full Jedi Knight" status (he was found after being frozen for millenia), but the player isn't so sure. I just think it's kind of silly for him to have a 2D Perception, for example, just because he wanted to have his Sense and other Force abilities at a 3D or so.

Game balance can be helpful for some games, but there's many games that allow it, and it can really fit the genre more apporpriately to have different characters at varying power levels. Otherwise how does the Wasp function on the same team as Thor (or the Hulk)? Or Green Arrow feel capable in the presence of Superman?
_________________
Currently Running: Villains & Vigilantes (a 32-year-old campaign with multiple groups) and D6 Star Wars; mostly on hiatus are Adventures in Middle-earth and Delta Green