Forums of the Megaverse®

There are plenty of inexperienced GMs, just as there are plenty of poor players. I'm more likely to forgive an inexperienced GM, than I am a player who acts like a jerk.

Jorel wrote:There are plenty of inexperienced GMs, just as there are plenty of poor players. I'm more likely to forgive an inexperienced GM, than I am a player who acts like a jerk.

Absolutely.

As to the OP I would say don't worry. There's no need to worry about mistakes, unless you're playing with bullies.

lather wrote:

Jorel wrote:There are plenty of inexperienced GMs, just as there are plenty of poor players. I'm more likely to forgive an inexperienced GM, than I am a player who acts like a jerk.

Absolutely.

As to the OP I would say don't worry. There's no need to worry about mistakes, unless you're playing with bullies.

I hurriedly read "playing with bullets." and then was like wha?, oh bullies.

I worry about my mistakes only because I have 2 people who have never played a role playing game. Luckily they are having fun and haven't noticed my errors. On the other hand my gf who has played D&D has mentioned things she would do different to me and that I shouldn't have done things a certain way. I appreciate her advice and she hasn't done it in front of the other players which is good also. In just 2 sessions I have become a better GM though and I feel that we are all improving as a whole.

Juce734 wrote:I worry about my mistakes only because I have 2 people who have never played a role playing game. Luckily they are having fun and haven't noticed my errors. On the other hand my gf who has played D&D has mentioned things she would do different to me and that I shouldn't have done things a certain way. I appreciate her advice and she hasn't done it in front of the other players which is good also. In just 2 sessions I have become a better GM though and I feel that we are all improving as a whole.

That is what I'm talkin about. Respectful GM and players.

Jorel wrote:

lather wrote:

Jorel wrote:There are plenty of inexperienced GMs, just as there are plenty of poor players. I'm more likely to forgive an inexperienced GM, than I am a player who acts like a jerk.

Absolutely.

As to the OP I would say don't worry. There's no need to worry about mistakes, unless you're playing with bullies.

I hurriedly read "playing with bullets." and then was like wha?, oh bullies.

Juce734 wrote:I worry about my mistakes only because I have 2 people who have never played a role playing game. Luckily they are having fun and haven't noticed my errors. On the other hand my gf who has played D&D has mentioned things she would do different to me and that I shouldn't have done things a certain way. I appreciate her advice and she hasn't done it in front of the other players which is good also. In just 2 sessions I have become a better GM though and I feel that we are all improving as a whole.

That's cool.

Although I don't know what mistakes you made so I can't really say if this is the case or not: but there can be some value in pointing out your mistakes even if others don't see them.

Juce734 wrote:I worry about my mistakes only because I have 2 people who have never played a role playing game. Luckily they are having fun and haven't noticed my errors. On the other hand my gf who has played D&D has mentioned things she would do different to me and that I shouldn't have done things a certain way. I appreciate her advice and she hasn't done it in front of the other players which is good also. In just 2 sessions I have become a better GM though and I feel that we are all improving as a whole.

If you have a 'Co-GM' like that who can point out ****** and what you could have done differently, and two chill players, you're set for life man. Don't sweat it. I will point out, "What I would have done differently", is different then "That was Wrong". Make sure to remember GM styles are GM styles, you'll find your own in due time I'm sure.

Remember, not every battle has to be "to the death" or anywhere close to it... remember to have different levels of npcs as backup in case the ones on hand you had plans for die. Tie everything together.... When I used to do a lot of GMing one way I balanced things was to always have about a level 10-12 group of mid-to-high level npcs in charge of some of the other npcs in various ways, and somewhere among them a level 15, but most of those higher level folks never show up on screen, or if they do it was just for a short cameo... if that sort of thing does not help, make some of the even higher ups be demi-gods and things from beyond... Of course, a lot of my stories were about various mystic or ninja or crime organizations and things, so was not hard to have a level 15 npc with ungodly amount of attacks per minute... and if it was inner city that ninja "ran" on negative chi, if in the woods, positive chi near a waterfall... always had to have head base in a cave under a waterfall as the very last resort, lol.

One thing you can do, have a pc for yourself, and have some of the other players be gms someday.

Game balance is a myth invented by whiners.
Every character has its strengths and weaknesses.

Vrykolas2k wrote:Game balance is a myth invented by whiners.
Every character has its strengths and weaknesses.

Game balance means that the difference is equal between those strengths and weaknesses. So your stance is that you're wrong by your own reason that should make you right? There is no gravity because I stay on the ground. Hmmm, doesn't seem to work so hot for physical laws, I'm not floating yet.

Game balance is pretty definable and pretty quantifiable.

Vrykolas2k wrote:Game balance is a myth invented by whiners.
Every character has its strengths and weaknesses.

When the strengths and weaknesses balance each other out pretty well, that's game balance.
When they don't, it's not.

Cinos wrote:

Vrykolas2k wrote:Game balance is a myth invented by whiners.
Every character has its strengths and weaknesses.

Game balance means that the difference is equal between those strengths and weaknesses. So your stance is that you're wrong by your own reason that should make you right? There is no gravity because I stay on the ground. Hmmm, doesn't seem to work so hot for physical laws, I'm not floating yet.

Game balance is pretty definable and pretty quantifiable.

I've seen that the reverse is true with rpgs.
Try Marvel Super-Heroes sometime.
Some problems are Black Widow problems, some are Thor problems.
Play Talislanta. You'll note that there are some characters who are more powerful in some ways than others, but all are playable and none will "break" the game.
And so on...

Vrykolas2k wrote:

Cinos wrote:

Vrykolas2k wrote:Game balance is a myth invented by whiners.
Every character has its strengths and weaknesses.

Game balance means that the difference is equal between those strengths and weaknesses. So your stance is that you're wrong by your own reason that should make you right? There is no gravity because I stay on the ground. Hmmm, doesn't seem to work so hot for physical laws, I'm not floating yet.

Game balance is pretty definable and pretty quantifiable.

I've seen that the reverse is true with rpgs.
Try Marvel Super-Heroes sometime.
Some problems are Black Widow problems, some are Thor problems.
Play Talislanta. You'll note that there are some characters who are more powerful in some ways than others, but all are playable and none will "break" the game.
And so on...

If they are more powerful in some ways but lack in others, that is game balance. You're defining it right there. It's one one class / choice is 100% better in every way which balance is thrown off, or one does not have enough off setting boosts to compensate for a comparable class / thing.

Splynnys Girlfriend wrote:

Vrykolas2k wrote:Game balance is a myth invented by whiners.
Every character has its strengths and weaknesses.

what if one class has all the strengths & weaknesses of another class & then some more strengths on top? what u said is basicly meaningless coz pally doesnt build weaknesses into most classes in the first place so the only way to measure classes is to say "well this can do a b & c & that can only do a & b"

no pally does not build mechanical weaknesses into a class. If your going to make a broad sweeping statement at least make it right. The weaknesses are there they just happen to require you to role-play them rather than roll-play them.

As to balance being a myth or not let me quote a game designer from another company.
"The actual GOAL of class balance is kind of impossible. Because the classes aren't all built to do the same thing." - James Jacob

Damian Magecraft wrote:no pally does not build mechanical weaknesses into a class. If your going to make a broad sweeping statement at least make it right. The weaknesses are there they just happen to require you to role-play them rather than roll-play them.

As to balance being a myth or not let me quote a game designer from another company.
"The actual GOAL of class balance is kind of impossible. Because the classes aren't all built to do the same thing." - James Jacob

Yeah that's why Monk's can use any weapon, priests aren't restricted to specific alignments, casters of all stripes can wear any armor they want, and Psionic powers can affect people in high MDC power armors.

Oh wait, none of that is true, and all of those are built in Mechanical weaknesses.

Cinos wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:no pally does not build mechanical weaknesses into a class. If your going to make a broad sweeping statement at least make it right. The weaknesses are there they just happen to require you to role-play them rather than roll-play them.

As to balance being a myth or not let me quote a game designer from another company.
"The actual GOAL of class balance is kind of impossible. Because the classes aren't all built to do the same thing." - James Jacob

Yeah that's why Monk's can use any weapon, priests aren't restricted to specific alignments, casters of all stripes can wear any armor they want, and Psionic powers can affect people in high MDC power armors.

Oh wait, none of that is true, and all of those are built in Mechanical weaknesses.

and yet the poster of whom I was responding claimed there were no weaknesses of any kind built into the classes (mechanical or otherwise).
I stand corrected there are mechanical weaknesses built into classes as well as Role-play ones.

Priests are restricted in alignment? really? so a Priest cant be evil? or is it good that they cant be?
and mages can wear armor if they wish they just have to deal with restrictions to their casting ability.
so there are two more sweeping statements to include with mine and SGs.

Priests are restricted to their own perspective limitations (Priests of Dark must be evil, Priests of Light must be good, both classes have different abilities and different perk / flaws). And Mages in armor in many of the games are about as smart as a Soldier who uses no weapons (loses WP bonuses, loses huge damage potential for absolutely 0 gain, and if you're about to say But they can use their hands, the guy who is good with a sword can to, he can let go of the weapon when he pleases and be just the same as the guy who fights with unarmed, and both take boxing anyway).

And my statement applies to you and Splynn's GF, but I tend not to bother to quote people who use so much leet speak

Damian Magecraft wrote:Priests are restricted in alignment? really? so a Priest cant be evil? or is it good that they cant be?

That would depend on the deity in question.

Splynnys Girlfriend wrote:

Vrykolas2k wrote:

Cinos wrote:

Vrykolas2k wrote:Game balance is a myth invented by whiners.
Every character has its strengths and weaknesses.

Game balance means that the difference is equal between those strengths and weaknesses. So your stance is that you're wrong by your own reason that should make you right? There is no gravity because I stay on the ground. Hmmm, doesn't seem to work so hot for physical laws, I'm not floating yet.

Game balance is pretty definable and pretty quantifiable.

I've seen that the reverse is true with rpgs.
Try Marvel Super-Heroes sometime.
Some problems are Black Widow problems, some are Thor problems.
Play Talislanta. You'll note that there are some characters who are more powerful in some ways than others, but all are playable and none will "break" the game.
And so on...

try playin rifts with a Gambler & a True Atlantean Undead Slayer

does anything u say ever apply to pallys game balance problem?

I've run games with characters who varied in power from normal humans/ elves/ whatever to godlings.
They all had their moments to shine equally.

Vrykolas2k wrote:

Splynnys Girlfriend wrote:

You'll note that there are some characters who are more powerful in some ways than others, but all are playable and none will "break" the game.
And so on...

try playin rifts with a Gambler & a True Atlantean Undead Slayer

does anything u say ever apply to pallys game balance problem?

I've run games with characters who varied in power from normal humans/ elves/ whatever to godlings.
They all had their moments to shine equally.

The main thing that makes one character unbalanced from another is if it makes the other one obsolete.
A City Rat thief and a Godling brawler might make a great pair, because they need each other; each can do something useful that the other can't do. Sometimes the Rat will get to be the hero, sometimes the Godling gets to be the hero.

But it would be unbalanced if you had a City Rat brawler paired with the Godling brawler; the City Rat would be completely outmatched even in his area of expertise.
That's lack of balance between characters, and it's fairly measurable.

Game balance isn't all about player characters, though: there's also the balance between the PCs and the NPCs.
If the PCs can dominate every NPC they run into, that's also unbalance. This is also fairly measurable, but how much and how often it happens depends heavily on the Game Master, so it's not exactly a science.

Also, there's balance between equipment, and balance between spells, and balance between psychic powers, and so on.
Balance is an issue that can happen (or fail to happen) in most areas of the game in one way or another.

If X makes Y obsolete, and Y is not supposed to be obsolete according to the game setting, then things are unbalanced.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Splynnys Girlfriend wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Splynnys Girlfriend wrote:

Jorel wrote:A decent Gm will throw a little of everything at them. That way they all have a chance to succeed and a chance to fail at stuff, and the different levels of strength won't matter and will balance with that character not being able succeed elsewhere. Sounds pretty well balanced to me.

theres better games for that tho. lotsa games have rules for luck or storypoints or whatevs to help get lowpowered chars involved & give them a fighting chance & make sure the game isnt all about combat wombats. pally games dont help you do that at all.

No, they rely on skill and teamwork instead.

they rely on the GM working very hard to beat a game balance problem without help from the rules coz they are why theres a game balance problem to begin with

What game balance problem?

I have more books on the right side of my desk than the left.

Killer Cyborg wrote:The main thing that makes one character unbalanced from another is if it makes the other one obsolete.
A City Rat thief and a Godling brawler might make a great pair, because they need each other; each can do something useful that the other can't do. Sometimes the Rat will get to be the hero, sometimes the Godling gets to be the hero.

But it would be unbalanced if you had a City Rat brawler paired with the Godling brawler; the City Rat would be completely outmatched even in his area of expertise.
That's lack of balance between characters, and it's fairly measurable.

Game balance isn't all about player characters, though: there's also the balance between the PCs and the NPCs.
If the PCs can dominate every NPC they run into, that's also unbalance. This is also fairly measurable, but how much and how often it happens depends heavily on the Game Master, so it's not exactly a science.

Also, there's balance between equipment, and balance between spells, and balance between psychic powers, and so on.
Balance is an issue that can happen (or fail to happen) in most areas of the game in one way or another.

If X makes Y obsolete, and Y is not supposed to be obsolete according to the game setting, then things are unbalanced.

Sounds like something a friend and I did many moons ago. I played a human Super-Spy with psionics. He could be trusted to not get killed in combat, but that was about it. His partner was a werewolf Special Forces. They complimented each other nicely though the werewolf would have crushed the spy had they quarreled.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Vrykolas2k wrote:

Splynnys Girlfriend wrote:

You'll note that there are some characters who are more powerful in some ways than others, but all are playable and none will "break" the game.
And so on...

try playin rifts with a Gambler & a True Atlantean Undead Slayer

does anything u say ever apply to pallys game balance problem?

I've run games with characters who varied in power from normal humans/ elves/ whatever to godlings.
They all had their moments to shine equally.

The main thing that makes one character unbalanced from another is if it makes the other one obsolete.
A City Rat thief and a Godling brawler might make a great pair, because they need each other; each can do something useful that the other can't do. Sometimes the Rat will get to be the hero, sometimes the Godling gets to be the hero.

But it would be unbalanced if you had a City Rat brawler paired with the Godling brawler; the City Rat would be completely outmatched even in his area of expertise.
That's lack of balance between characters, and it's fairly measurable.

Game balance isn't all about player characters, though: there's also the balance between the PCs and the NPCs.
If the PCs can dominate every NPC they run into, that's also unbalance. This is also fairly measurable, but how much and how often it happens depends heavily on the Game Master, so it's not exactly a science.

Also, there's balance between equipment, and balance between spells, and balance between psychic powers, and so on.
Balance is an issue that can happen (or fail to happen) in most areas of the game in one way or another.

If X makes Y obsolete, and Y is not supposed to be obsolete according to the game setting, then things are unbalanced.

Get the godling into Chi-town.

Right.
The City Rat will be able to do whatever mission involves that, while the godling does something else.
Just as an example.
Ergo, neither character is obsolete.

Vrykolas2k wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Vrykolas2k wrote:

Splynnys Girlfriend wrote:

You'll note that there are some characters who are more powerful in some ways than others, but all are playable and none will "break" the game.
And so on...

try playin rifts with a Gambler & a True Atlantean Undead Slayer

does anything u say ever apply to pallys game balance problem?

I've run games with characters who varied in power from normal humans/ elves/ whatever to godlings.
They all had their moments to shine equally.

The main thing that makes one character unbalanced from another is if it makes the other one obsolete.
A City Rat thief and a Godling brawler might make a great pair, because they need each other; each can do something useful that the other can't do. Sometimes the Rat will get to be the hero, sometimes the Godling gets to be the hero.

But it would be unbalanced if you had a City Rat brawler paired with the Godling brawler; the City Rat would be completely outmatched even in his area of expertise.
That's lack of balance between characters, and it's fairly measurable.

Game balance isn't all about player characters, though: there's also the balance between the PCs and the NPCs.
If the PCs can dominate every NPC they run into, that's also unbalance. This is also fairly measurable, but how much and how often it happens depends heavily on the Game Master, so it's not exactly a science.

Also, there's balance between equipment, and balance between spells, and balance between psychic powers, and so on.
Balance is an issue that can happen (or fail to happen) in most areas of the game in one way or another.

If X makes Y obsolete, and Y is not supposed to be obsolete according to the game setting, then things are unbalanced.

Get the godling into Chi-town.

Right.
The City Rat will be able to do whatever mission involves that, while the godling does something else.
Just as an example.
Ergo, neither character is obsolete.

Not in a Chi-Town adventure, and assuming that the Godling can't disguise his/her nature, sure.
But in most cases, yeah, one of them is obsolete.

My experience both as player and GM shows otherwise.

Vrykolas2k wrote:My experience both as player and GM shows otherwise.

My experience with the word "obsolete" shows you're wrong.

If one character can do everything that the other can do, and more, then the other character is obsolete; you can use it, but there's something better out there that's just as easy to obtain.
It's what the word means.

This doesn't mean you can't use it; the computer I'm typing on is obsolete.
It doesn't mean you can't have fun.

But it does mean that things aren't balanced.

Then we're back to the point of those two characters not actually doing everything that the other can.
Thus, neither is obsolete.

In my experience, more often than not, you can't have fun even when both characters can do lots of things but the players can't. All it takes is for the one character to be played by a player who doesn't have the first clue about the things her character is doing but you (and your character) do. Admittedly that's a problem with the player more than anything else, but it is set up by the situation.

Vrykolas2k wrote:Then we're back to the point of those two characters not actually doing everything that the other can.
Thus, neither is obsolete.

Where'd that come from?
Because under circumstances that won't come up in the hypothetical campaign, the two specific examples that I posted can actually do different things?