This difference is what makes Three Card Monte a scam and Craps a game.

This difference is what makes Three Card Monte a scam and Craps a game.

As I write this though, I am becoming acutely aware that both of these systems became granular in order to INCREASE “balance,” which in turn made the games less diverse in the characters created. Most Hero players use the “round off” advantages. So obsession with game balance in an rpg can be a disadvantage. I am currently re-reading your Brave New World books and liking its use of “dependence” balance.

I think this discussion of balance would be helped by a categorization of what types of balance are appropriate for what kinds of games.

In a competitive game, like Chess or Poker (games of skill), the rules must be completely balanced due to the nature of the simulation taking place. The simulation is about who is a “better” player. If such a game is unbalanced, the players must be allowed to “switch sides” for the outcomes of competitions to be truly representative of higher “skill.” This is why who gets to be white is rotated and why Bobby Fischer obsessed so much about a “randomized” back line. He wanted competition to be about skill and not memorization. So for competitive games, where the purpose is to measure who is “better,” game balance regarding the “power” of pieces must be as close to perfect as possible.

For recreational video games, the balance must be sufficient to make the games as fun for as many people as possible. In PVP MMORPGs, a part of the fun is discovering and using build exploits. When too many builds are using the exploits, the fun factor is reduced and the exploit is removed or new exploits are added. For some the discovery of exploits to pwn some newb (or other experienced player) is the purpose of these games. For me, I like to play PVE and engage with the environment/designers as my opponents and being griefed diminishes my fun. I truly wish there was a way to disincentivize griefers in PVE servers other than to completely remove PVP play. I don’t PVP, but some very reasonable PVE preferrers like to engage in it from time to time even while simultaneously hating being griefed.

For cooperative games, like RPGs in general (though not for all groups), the balance can be one where you require certain roles to fulfill goals by which you reinforce cooperation by the players. Games like 1st and 4th Edition D&D strive for this kind of play, as do BNW and Savage Worlds (not to mention a number of indie games). Other games make character design into a competition, who can make the best character. This feeds, in a very natural way, a certain kind of wish fulfillment. All RPGs are about some kind of wish fulfillment, but build games with “exploits” feed a kind of in group griefing which in turn requires the development of certain GMing practices.

Every design choice in a game incentivizes different play choices. So, the kind of play you want is affected by the level and kind of balance you instill in your game. DC Heroes AP system made it easy to make characters who were different in the “effects” they displayed while being essentially equal. Certainly, like other effects based systems (Hero/M&M) it can be exploited, but somehow DC has managed to fool most people into thinking it isn’t an effects based game. Marvel Superheroes has a wonderful unbalanced system, but it is “too” unbalanced as a fight between Captain America and the Hulk is less interesting in the game than it would be in the medium being simulated.

In short, I think that what kind of play you desire can be incentivized by the type of game balance you choose to use. A roughly balanced system like BNW feeds a certain kind of play, as does Savage Worlds where some of the edges are definitely better than others but are narratively inappropriate for certain character concepts. An aggressively balanced system like Hero/Champions incentivizes other kinds of play. I have played in a lot of “inefficient” Champions games, those were the most fun for me. I am a player who prefers story to power fulfillment. But the system incentivizes digging into the crunchy bits like almost no other game ever made, often to its detriment. The same holds true for GURPS. I firmly believe that the exploits in these systems can discourage new gamers who enter an experienced playing group only to find themselves to be horribly outclassed, even when things are “equal.”

As I write this though, I am becoming acutely aware that both of these systems became granular in order to INCREASE “balance,” which in turn made the games less diverse in the characters created. Most Hero players use the “round off” advantages. So obsession with game balance in an rpg can be a disadvantage. I am currently re-reading your Brave New World books and liking its use of “dependence” balance.

I think this discussion of balance would be helped by a categorization of what types of balance are appropriate for what kinds of games.

In a competitive game, like Chess or Poker (games of skill), the rules must be completely balanced due to the nature of the simulation taking place. The simulation is about who is a “better” player. If such a game is unbalanced, the players must be allowed to “switch sides” for the outcomes of competitions to be truly representative of higher “skill.” This is why who gets to be white is rotated and why Bobby Fischer obsessed so much about a “randomized” back line. He wanted competition to be about skill and not memorization. So for competitive games, where the purpose is to measure who is “better,” game balance regarding the “power” of pieces must be as close to perfect as possible.

For recreational video games, the balance must be sufficient to make the games as fun for as many people as possible. In PVP MMORPGs, a part of the fun is discovering and using build exploits. When too many builds are using the exploits, the fun factor is reduced and the exploit is removed or new exploits are added. For some the discovery of exploits to pwn some newb (or other experienced player) is the purpose of these games. For me, I like to play PVE and engage with the environment/designers as my opponents and being griefed diminishes my fun. I truly wish there was a way to disincentivize griefers in PVE servers other than to completely remove PVP play. I don’t PVP, but some very reasonable PVE preferrers like to engage in it from time to time even while simultaneously hating being griefed.

For cooperative games, like RPGs in general (though not for all groups), the balance can be one where you require certain roles to fulfill goals by which you reinforce cooperation by the players. Games like 1st and 4th Edition D&D strive for this kind of play, as do BNW and Savage Worlds (not to mention a number of indie games). Other games make character design into a competition, who can make the best character. This feeds, in a very natural way, a certain kind of wish fulfillment. All RPGs are about some kind of wish fulfillment, but build games with “exploits” feed a kind of in group griefing which in turn requires the development of certain GMing practices.

Every design choice in a game incentivizes different play choices. So, the kind of play you want is affected by the level and kind of balance you instill in your game. DC Heroes AP system made it easy to make characters who were different in the “effects” they displayed while being essentially equal. Certainly, like other effects based systems (Hero/M&M) it can be exploited, but somehow DC has managed to fool most people into thinking it isn’t an effects based game. Marvel Superheroes has a wonderful unbalanced system, but it is “too” unbalanced as a fight between Captain America and the Hulk is less interesting in the game than it would be in the medium being simulated.

In short, I think that what kind of play you desire can be incentivized by the type of game balance you choose to use. A roughly balanced system like BNW feeds a certain kind of play, as does Savage Worlds where some of the edges are definitely better than others but are narratively inappropriate for certain character concepts. An aggressively balanced system like Hero/Champions incentivizes other kinds of play. I have played in a lot of “inefficient” Champions games, those were the most fun for me. I am a player who prefers story to power fulfillment. But the system incentivizes digging into the crunchy bits like almost no other game ever made, often to its detriment. The same holds true for GURPS. I firmly believe that the exploits in these systems can discourage new gamers who enter an experienced playing group only to find themselves to be horribly outclassed, even when things are “equal.”

Three-card monte’s not a game. It’s a scam. 🙂

Three-card monte’s not a game. It’s a scam. 🙂