What do we mean by "balanced"?

[tbone]

The whole purpose of a point-cost system, it seems to me, is to "balance" PCs against each other.

In the past, I would have said that this means equipping PCs with roughly similar amounts of "utility".

That's not wrong, I think, but I'd word it differently now. I'd say the purpose of a point-cost system is to "balance" PCs against each other in terms of "spotlight" potential – that is, equipping PCs with roughly similar opportunities to shine at key moments, to do something awesome, to make a difference in the game world.

(In some sort of "neutral" circumstances that may or may not exist, of course. Actual "spotlight" potential will vary wildly with what the GM throws at the characters. To the extent that sometimes I wonder how necessary points are, really. One PC could be a 1,000-pt superman, the other a 50-pt schlub, but if a good GM presents each with challenges appropriate to that PC, they'll each shine equally. Or, at least, that kind of thing works in fiction...)

[Kromm]

My experience in Actual Play™ is that "balanced" is more accurately "not unbalanced," which in turn almost inevitably ends means "doesn't make one player in the gaming group unhappy with another." The causes of unhappiness and thus "imbalance" are many and varied, but include inadequate spotlight time, even if the unhappy player can contribute in a supporting role; the sense of being able to contribute less over the course of a scene, adventure, or story arc, even if the unhappy player has plenty of spotlight time in terms of character dialog; a fear that in direct conflict between PCs, the PC of the unhappy player would have no hope of victory; and a general sense on the part of the unhappy player that somebody else at the table is gaming within the letter of the rules but not the spirit.

The important thing to note above is that balance is defined within the specific context of a particular gaming group and its social dynamics. It has at best a weak existence outside that frame. A game can attempt to impose such balance through well-thought-out, mathematically fair, and carefully worded rules that have been through playtesting, but at the end of the day there's no guarantee that the game or specific rules within it will be seen as balanced at any given gaming table.

A case in point from my previous GURPS campaign: One PC had an astronomical Guns (Rifle) skill and generally carried a high-powered rifle that cost cash, not points. She frequently settled combat from a great distance before anybody else could effectively engage. And none of the other players really cared, because this sniper was on their side and doing her assigned job. But it cost relatively few points, and perhaps in another campaign with other players, the person playing the martial artist who had invested four times as many points in beating people up at close range would have been miffed.

Is Guns (Rifle) "balanced" with respect to a whole martial-arts style that calls for Judo, Karate, and a bunch of perks and techniques? There's no right answer to that. In the real world, rifles are simply better: deadlier than fists and much easier to master. In a campaign that's supposed to make sense, that's how rifles ought to be . . . but that doesn't mean everybody would be happy with that. I've gamed with people who count kills and calculate damage per second, and they'd probably hate that "imbalance."

To a great extent, then, I think it's about players divvying up the tasks they see as important in a way that lets each person be good at something without making other players feel useless. It's also about the GM presenting challenges intelligently. For instance, there's nothing wrong with a game where one player has Batman and the other has Superman if the GM sets things up so that Superman is always pushed to his limits handling stuff that absolutely, positively needs superpowers, leaving an equally overwhelming workload of social and technical tasks for Batman.

[The Colonel]

As already noted, balance is what against what for what?
"That other RPG" appears to define balance entirely on combat potential, as befits its wargaming roots, but two characters defined for different roles could have radically different competencies in different settings - for example a suave diplomatic fixer might be essentially useless in a fight but breezes through most potential conflicts because of his high social skills and connections advantages whereas the optimised combat monster with the social skills of an unwashed bar towel might be at home in a dungeon but a positive liability in town.
The trick of balancing is to try to ensure that the same amount of points buy the same level of potency in your chosen environment ... and that's tricky, especially for a generic system that needs to work for any environment.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

....making sure an adventure or campaign is neither too difficult to achieve your objectives nor so easy that it becomes boring.

Originally Posted by SilvercatMoonpaw

And for some of us we need the system to handle as much of that as it can. Otherwise we're going to fail.

Character points aren't going to do that. Unless the player characters spend points on nothing but a particular role, the enemies spend points on exactly the same role in the same amounts, and the GM then puts the characters into situations where that role is dominant, character points won't tell you how an encounter is going to go. If the PCs spend all their points in being defensive tanks, the moment they come up against a quick, precision swashbuckler — or a powerful psychic — all their points mean nothing. And if they round themselves out, the opposition has to spend its own points to exactly counter the PCs in the areas they'll be meeting, and no more. It's really no easier trying to use points to do this, and you limit yourself.

I recall once running a game of Tales of the Solar Patrol, in which the Patrolmen, armed with atomic guns, were on Venus and ran into a rampaging tyrannosaurus rex. In exactly one turn they had Fast-Drawn their pistols and blasted the dinosaur to smithereens. No challenge whatsoever. I'd figured they could take the thing, but I hadn't really looked at the damage versus hit points, and so I was surprised by how quickly they killed it. That is the kind of analysis you need to do to judge whether an encounter is "balanced." I failed here, as you say. My failure taught me how to get it right the next time.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

Character points aren't going to do that. Unless the player characters spend points on nothing but a particular role, the enemies spend points on exactly the same role in the same amounts, and the GM then puts the characters into situations where that role is dominant, character points won't tell you how an encounter is going to go.

Total character points won't tell you anything, agreed. But if you can build a character on nothing but that role, then you know what traits go towards that role, and you can totally take note of the subtotal of points spent on those traits. EDIT: (but as you noted, equipment is a big thing that needs to be looked at, and not every trait contributes the same "oomf per point" towards a given goal)

[whswhs]

I think of "balance" in terms of traits, and I think of it economically. If everyone takes trait X, regardless of whether it fits their character concept or narrative or the campaign mission statement, X is probably too cheap; if no one takes X, even if it's a really good fit to their character concept, then X is probably too expensive. And also, if no one takes Y because X gives the same benefits and is cheaper, or because X is no more expensive and gives greater benefits, then one of X and Y is mispriced.

Average that over a large body of character design by many GURPS players, and you will see things emerge as unbalanced. Then you either eliminate them, or modify their costs so that whether to take them or not is a marginal decision, and you have improved system balance.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Balance is most relevant for cases when looking at two or more different ways of achieving the same thing. In that case, things are unbalanced when under 'naturally occurring', 'common' and/or 'assumed' circumstances, of the two ways which are considered both 'viable' according to logic, one is mechanically significantly superior in terms of cost, effect, flexibility etc.

Originally Posted by whswhs

I think of "balance" in terms of traits, and I think of it economically. If everyone takes trait X, regardless of whether it fits their character concept or narrative or the campaign mission statement, X is probably too cheap; if no one takes X, even if it's a really good fit to their character concept, then X is probably too expensive. And also, if no one takes Y because X gives the same benefits and is cheaper, or because X is no more expensive and gives greater benefits, then one of X and Y is mispriced.

For me, this is what "Balance" is really about. I want all ways of accomplishing a task to cost roughly the same. Two things that do about the same thing should cost about the same price.



I support this mainly in the name of versatility. I want players to build a character they find interesting, not solve a system for local maxima.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by SilvercatMoonpaw

And for some of us we need the system to handle as much of that as it can. Otherwise we're going to fail.

Yeah, I've done enough "rule-light" campaigns as both GM and Player to understand the lack of a system makes it nearly impossible to determine what a given character is capable of (it's already hard enough in GURPS!).

Originally Posted by Kromm

My experience in Actual Play™ is that "balanced" is more accurately "not unbalanced,"

That's more my focus when it comes to balance. I don't mind if a player finds a way to do something for less points (look at how great Double-Jointed is!), but that point costs and totals are approximately about "even" when it comes to "capability". A simplified example would be how DX 20 and IQ 20 are comparable, even though one is technically better than the other.

I also care more about player balance than campaign balance. I don't mind if I send obstacles that are too easy or hard against a party (even wildly stronger enemies end up being beaten through player ingenuity which I love). But I've had exactly one campaign where one player was just straight better than the other due to imbalanced traits, even though the better player was 50pts less.

Originally Posted by Kromm

To a great extent, then, I think it's about players divvying up the tasks they see as important in a way that lets each person be good at something without making other players feel useless. It's also about the GM presenting challenges intelligently. For instance, there's nothing wrong with a game where one player has Batman and the other has Superman if the GM sets things up so that Superman is always pushed to his limits handling stuff that absolutely, positively needs superpowers, leaving an equally overwhelming workload of social and technical tasks for Batman.

I wish I knew how to appropriately do this. I can do this when righting a story, but then I have time and editing on my side.

Originally Posted by whswhs

And also, if no one takes Y because X gives the same benefits and is cheaper, or because X is no more expensive and gives greater benefits, then one of X and Y is mispriced.

I find this to be an issue, but a related one is with disadvantages; There are some that no one has every seriously contemplated taking because it's not fun or fair, regardless of point total.

Originally Posted by ericthered

I support this mainly in the name of versatility. I want players to build a character they find interesting, not solve a system for local maxima.

I'm similar here, I want players to make characters they like. I will then help them "maximize" potential with those ideas within the rules of the system.

[JazzJedi]

Originally Posted by SilvercatMoonpaw

That would annoy the hell out of me: if I don't care if the characters are point-balanced I rapidly slip into "Why do I want to use rules* at all?"

*Game rules, not guidelines in general.

We use the rules to adjudicate the game of course and are not arbitrary with their application, just the point costs. Old school D&D was extremely unbalanced and so were most "roll up your character" early TSR RPGs. The point-buy system are good too, but as has been pointed out, they aren't necessarily balanced. In our system, you get as many points as you need to create the character you already designed in concept. This takes a lot of time and negotiation between the players and the GM and is not "get whatever you want". Still, it surely isn't for everyone, and I'm not trying to convert anyone, just pointing out that balance doesn't mean more fun or more fairness, just the perception of fairness.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

I wish I knew how to appropriately do this. I can do this when righting a story, but then I have time and editing on my side.

I use the "baited-trap chain reaction" method:

First, I present something that's clearly a huge problem, clearly in need of an immediate, this-cannot-wait-five-seconds solution, and clearly impossible to solve . . . without the amazing abilities of our "Superman" character, who's perhaps a little overpowered. I'd say that 99 times in 100, the player of that character will jump on the problem.

Once the player of "Superman" has committed their character to action – when it would be fair to say, "Sorry, but you're somewhere else and you're very busy" – I spring a second problem. This one is no smaller or less urgent, but it calls for the extensive expertise of our "Batman" character. And the player of that character will just about always take charge at once.

This works in any genre. In dungeon fantasy, for instance, if a caster with a spell for everything and just about unlimited power tends to dominate battles, you tie that person up with a spectral foe only magic can touch. You make sure that the warriors, rogues, etc. really don't stand a chance. And once the caster is busy . . . that's when the army of very physical undead show up, giving the warriors a chance to show off their ability to take on and defeat multiple foes apiece. If all that upstages the poor rogue, you mention to the rogue's player, "Nobody is guarding the altar/loot/door/whatever," or, "You notice a shadowy figure taking advantage of the chaos to flank you." This gives the rogue the chance to pull off a coup of treasure-hunting or day-saving.

Of course, this does require ad-lib GMing. It will annoy the sort of player who wants everything graven in stone ahead of time, and who hates it when the universe responds in real time to make the story more interesting and the game more fun for all. If your group dislikes such character-centric gaming – if they prefer cut-and-dried adventures that work more like printed modules in the Days of Yore – you're out of luck. But with gamers like that, everything is going to be a calculation anyway, so you're probably better off being a super-strict GM regarding character creation and development.