Forums of the Megaverse®

This weekend I start GMing my first game. The issue I am worried about in the long run is game balance. I have other concerns too but I think those are just cuz I've never GMed before. What tricks do you use to balance your game?

It depends on what you mean by game balance, I guess. When I think about game balance, I try to ask myself this question: If I put this group of players up against [insert a DECENT bad guy here, not just some pansy from mamby pamby land], will the characters have a good fight and eventually win, or is this fight so lop-sided that one side has an instant win?

If the answer to that question is that it's a good fight with the characters eventually coming out on top, then there is balance in the game. If the answer is that one side has an instant win button, I then try to determine what the button is and eliminate it. And how you deal with it is entirely up to you. I have house-ruled stuff to ban it (supernatural PS in HU, no Fremlins in AD&D, etc.). I have altered stats for bad guys to get the game back in balance.

All in all, it's up to you to figure out how best to re-balance your game. Maybe if you give a few examples of what you think is out of balance?

I have 3 players and this Saturday will be our 1st session. It was important to me they could have the player they wanted. I limited some things like no mega hero and no supernatural PS.

Bolt - Female with EE: Electricity. She can turn invisible. Has under 70 SDC. Has high IQ and high skill %'s.

Underwater Alien - Female that can shape change. Has heightened sense of touch. Has less than 60 SDC. Has middle of the pack skill %'s.

Metal - Male Experiment that can turn into metal (800 SDC). He is powerful in battles but has low skill %'s.

I could see both the females being able to pass a lot of skill checks and being helpful that way but in battle the metal guy is easily the toughest.

I don't think the metal guy will pass most of his skill checks. The girls would have the toughest time in battle.

It seems like it may be tough for me to keep everything interesting for everyone. Game balance will come into question I think.

I take a look at each skill the players have, those that are unique to one character, I try to incorporate into the adventure. This serves a few purposes: It gives each player a chance to affect the game, to feel important, and to challenge you the GM, in the story telling process.

See, this is where we start to cross into that area where things might be a little unbalanced.

In combat, the metal guy is tough and you have to give him opponents that are a worthy test for him. But the girls are going to suffer because they cannot stand up to the same bad guys, and will feel useless in combat. Outside of combat, the girls are smart and able to do all the non-combat things (like research, or pick a lock, etc.), but the metal guy is just going to stand there thinking that he's useless.

The real problem is going to be trying to run the game so that everyone stays interested and is involved in all aspects. Experienced GMs are able to account for this no problem. But a novice GM may not be able to do that. And while I appreciate that you wanted to be the guy who says "Hey, no worries - you guys can have any characters that you want", that may not work if this is your first time as a GM. For the first couple of times you GM, you may want to tell the players "Look, I'm new at this, and I want this to be an enjoyable experience for all. With that said, maybe we should look at everybody being on the same playing field - either everyone is a combat machine, or you guys cover all the skills you can and we'll run an intrigue and research campaign".

I know - you don't want to do that. Nobody wants to do that. But it will help you in the long run being a GM.

Severus Snape wrote:See, this is where we start to cross into that area where things might be a little unbalanced.

In combat, the metal guy is tough and you have to give him opponents that are a worthy test for him. But the girls are going to suffer because they cannot stand up to the same bad guys, and will feel useless in combat. Outside of combat, the girls are smart and able to do all the non-combat things (like research, or pick a lock, etc.), but the metal guy is just going to stand there thinking that he's useless.

The real problem is going to be trying to run the game so that everyone stays interested and is involved in all aspects. Experienced GMs are able to account for this no problem. But a novice GM may not be able to do that. And while I appreciate that you wanted to be the guy who says "Hey, no worries - you guys can have any characters that you want", that may not work if this is your first time as a GM. For the first couple of times you GM, you may want to tell the players "Look, I'm new at this, and I want this to be an enjoyable experience for all. With that said, maybe we should look at everybody being on the same playing field - either everyone is a combat machine, or you guys cover all the skills you can and we'll run an intrigue and research campaign".

I know - you don't want to do that. Nobody wants to do that. But it will help you in the long run being a GM.

Luckily 1 girl has invisibility and the other has higher PP. If I bring in villians with low PP and not high strike bonuses who deliver high damage wouldn't that kind of counter the group? Maybe some kind of a body armor for the girls?

Then for variety maybe a super villian who is their biggest rival that has magnetism? He could slap the metal guy against a semi so he can't move unless he changes to his human form. Could do something similiar with a hardware enemy making a giant magnet attached to a van to hold the metal fella.

Would these work sometimes to add variance?

Ask your players how to 'balance' it.

And really, if they don't know how to do that at all, how the heck are you supposed to know? Say that to 'em. They shouldn't expect something from you that they are incapable of doing themselves. It'd be silly.

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.

I am running a PF campaign atm that has a summoner in it. His greater minion pets are very unbalancing.

The way Im currently balancing this out so the group gets an equal amount of oomph is by introducing more opponents to take out the (currently) angel - eg they fought a warlock and the angel took on his elemental, they fought some demons and the angel took on the extra four I threw in.

If I have an area that the minion is just too overpowering for that plot I take it away (either killed or banished or misinterprets a command etc) but this sucks for the individual summoner who delights in having this powerhouse. therefore I counter this by throwing little rewards (ie he's always wanted to command an angel so now he has one!) or by having another (unscheduled) encounter were the summoner can throw his minions weight around a feel maniacal without interrupting the plot. I give a little, I take a little away....

It is bloody tough to keep a group balance if the players arent of the same power levels so the input above of balancing the OCCs is important. Ofc every OCC will have its moment and if your player doesnt mind stepping out of combat (one of mine doesnt atm) to let the other take over then you've no issues. Just as long as they realise that from the start.

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.

Juce734 wrote:This weekend I start GMing my first game. The issue I am worried about in the long run is game balance. I have other concerns too but I think those are just cuz I've never GMed before. What tricks do you use to balance your game?

To answer the actual question asked (and not replying to others), I would need to know what PB game you are GMing. BTS game balance is very different than Rifts game balance, which is different than any others, or 2 or more combined.

ZorValachan wrote:

Juce734 wrote:This weekend I start GMing my first game. The issue I am worried about in the long run is game balance. I have other concerns too but I think those are just cuz I've never GMed before. What tricks do you use to balance your game?

To answer the actual question asked (and not replying to others), I would need to know what PB game you are GMing. BTS game balance is very different than Rifts game balance, which is different than any others, or 2 or more combined.

Heroes Unlimited

Game balance depends on the game being run. Military games often have to balance the encounters so that the players have a decent chance at actually winning in a gun fight, while games that are more casually based around the idea of "Living on Rifts Earth" need to be more so balanced around the financial and environmental side of things.

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?

What it comes down to is that the Palladium system doesn't provide game balance like other settings. Rather, it's probably better to think of the Palladium system as a tool box where the Game master creates the game and determines what is balanced as he sees fit. Needless to say, the game takes some getting used to for those who have learned their play styles from Dungeons and Dragons or Pathfinder: Both of which are fine games in their own right.

We always play radically different characters it seems.

Here are a couple things I have done to balance games.

1: Adventure content. The first thing I do is write down the beginning point and the main objective. Next I write down every players name. Then as I construct the events, I make sure to have two events for every character. (Though noting that 1 event might cover a couple players). Dragons and the like will always be more powerful in combat... and particularly long lived. SDC characters are usually higher in skills, so I make notes on what their skills are and make sure those skills are needed to help the adventure. I always use two, because my group are quite skilled in coming up with ways to work around events. Also take into consideration how the powerful characters may try to smash their way through the skill oriented objectives and make brute force an unattractive option.

2. Powerful PCs mean powerful enemies. Always make sure those particularly powerful PCs have enemies that wish to harm them in particular. When dealing with dragons, there are many who may follow and try to ambush such characters. Those types of enemies will learn to track them via other means than their appearance. These types of enemies are the type that wait for an opportune moment to attack... say for instance when the group is in the middle of another battle. A determined enemy will use everything to their advantage. In our group we have an Atlantean so there are Sunaj that like to pop in when he is in the middle of an intense combat. Not every time, but enough that it always makes him wary to get in too deep. They bide their time and look for the time that he will be the easiest target.

3. Allies. If ALL the other member of your party are more highly powered save one, see if there is a way to give them allies. If its someone who wants to make a city rat while everyone is dragons and tattoo men, give them one or two lackeys. Maybe the leader of a small gang, or a couple childhood friends, maybe the character has a significant other. I have done this before and work it very similarly to how we handle shifters and their minions. Make sure the "allies" are much less powerful than the group (I usually go with half experience if the group has been going for a while) or if starting fresh, advance them at a slower rate. I have enjoyed it in the past because it gives great plot opportunities and I often use them to provide some comic entertainment. Allies are also a great way to insert hooks into the campaign or information the party may have missed somewhere.

Ahhh game balance, the tricky road to walk. First and foremost it depends on two things; Your Players and the Game you are playing (I will assume given the local, it is a Palladium books game, but balance can be different game to game, Carpet of Adhesion goes from a solid spell to crazy good when you change from Palladium's Melee Centric focus, to Rifts Range Centric one). What's more is what KIND of game you are running. Is it mostly talking, conning and conniving plans by the players, or is there a greater focus on combat and blade to flesh sorta game (Something players and GM will generally get a feel for when making a story arch, during character generation, and after a session or two).

So, the first thing to really consider is what vibe you want. For some, hacking through hordes of faceless mooks and having uber well tuned fights between a guy doing stupid things with weapons that shouldn't work fighting giant monsters (i.e the Advent Children road), or a more gritty duck and cover your arse bloody semi-realism (BTS in general). If its the former, balance should run fast and loose, and not get too bogged down in the finer details at first, you'll get the swing of it after a while, so long as you are creative, you can pretty well disable anything that gets out of hand one way or another, the simplest way is to just invent baddies of equal / greater power then the party they need to deal with (These baddies need not follow normal rules of creation, just throw on some added damage potential to their weapons, or some added combat bonuses / eye lasers, what have you, avoid doing it through gear when they're just there to make a fight hard, gear is loot able).

In gritty style games, miserly give out gear, make those lazy players work for their loot, adding a much more potent feel of earning it. Feel free to use some meaner rules, but at the same time have a level of forgiveness in them, and ensure to leave an out (surrender, a road to flee, etc, no player likes having their character killed in a slanted fight made imposable, a Control NPC is often the easiest way to do this, a powerful, but uncaring / delusional NPC often a wizard, who can make fights turn a tide when you realize you've gone too far, once you feel comfortable GM and with your group, control NPC's should be left behind).

Now in both instances, keep an open mind when adding or removing any element of the game. Offering bonuses to Strike to someone can offer a world of changes, more accurate called shots (lethal neck blows / eye shots to make up any low damage). Learning a bit about probability of dice can also help, I've met way too many gamers who feel a Critical 20 is more common then a Critical 1 (both are 5% odds, you could just as soon label any given number to be a persons Critical Success from then on and its as likely, BUT that changes accuracy rates for the better, or 'calling' the natural facing drastically alters consistency in wacky ways due to the choice element in it, even if every number has a 5% likelihood of showing up). Things like getting average on 6D6 (which is 21) is more common then average on 3D6 (which is 10), due to the way collective rolling works. This is getting past what most GMs need to know, but it's something to keep in mind when creating items or modifying / making new special abilities for characters / classes.

And that's all for my Balance and probabilities rant before I ramble more and put the collective of the forum to sleep by proxy.

Splynnys Girlfriend wrote: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

Pretty much.

I personally play Rifts specifically to avoid concerns about PC balance. There are many better ways to balance a game than figure out why a dragon would be as mundane as a city rat. Rifts is not meant to be balanced with regards to PCs. It IS the GMs job to make the game fun for all.

People seem to forget that balance does not mean the PCs have an exactly 50/50 chance of success. Balance in a game is setting the chance of success to what is expected of the situation the PCs are being thrown into.

Colt47 wrote:People seem to forget that balance does not mean the PCs have an exactly 50/50 chance of success. Balance in a game is setting the chance of success to what is expected of the situation the PCs are being thrown into.

Amen.

Splynnys Girlfriend wrote:

Colt47 wrote:People seem to forget that balance does not mean the PCs have an exactly 50/50 chance of success. Balance in a game is setting the chance of success to what is expected of the situation the PCs are being thrown into.

balance is giving the players a big enough challenge so they feel like they've accomplished something to overcome it but not so big that it grinds down the characters too much & gets frustrating.

unless its call of cthulhu

Balance isn't about players winning, it's about setting up conditions. There are some fights that are balanced and are simply designed so the players can not win. Making an impassible wall of zombies or putting up a large strike force of coalition can be considered balanced against a small group of players if the intention is to force the players to run away. Not that I have any problems with PCs committing suicide or anything: if they want to charge the large coalition strike force or attempt to wade through what seems like a sea of zombies, they can go right ahead.

Colt47 wrote:People seem to forget that balance does not mean the PCs have an exactly 50/50 chance of success. Balance in a game is setting the chance of success to what is expected of the situation the PCs are being thrown into.

In part; It is also a factor to ensure one option or play style does not completely overshadow others, de-legitimizing them as choices for simply being far worse then other options open to the player (Such as two pistols with the same stats, cost, and general availability, but one has +1 to Strike. Why use the other?).

Juce734 wrote:I have 3 players and this Saturday will be our 1st session. It was important to me they could have the player they wanted. I limited some things like no mega hero and no supernatural PS.

Bolt - Female with EE: Electricity. She can turn invisible. Has under 70 SDC. Has high IQ and high skill %'s.

Underwater Alien - Female that can shape change. Has heightened sense of touch. Has less than 60 SDC. Has middle of the pack skill %'s.

Metal - Male Experiment that can turn into metal (800 SDC). He is powerful in battles but has low skill %'s.

I could see both the females being able to pass a lot of skill checks and being helpful that way but in battle the metal guy is easily the toughest.

I don't think the metal guy will pass most of his skill checks. The girls would have the toughest time in battle.

It seems like it may be tough for me to keep everything interesting for everyone. Game balance will come into question I think.

Wow, I wish I had this group! They seem like the perfect group! Balance comes also with the situation they are in...
You may want to assign them positions for the task at hand. Possible options for a scenario include the local mutant holding cell for criminally insane super beings is purged and the baddies have escaped. Or they may be assigned the job to teach the two NPC mutants how to use their powers in order to fight a villain that is out to get them personally! Do they belong to an organization? Are they born as part of an elaborate plot of a greater good or is some evil being/person out to manipulate them?
Did they say they wanted some role-play mixed in with a bit of combat, or a lot of hard hitting action? Do you own the Villains Unlimited book? Helps to have a villain pre-made to cover any player character going left when you wanted them to go right. Has the group ever seen a movie or video that all of you wanted to actually role-play out? That is always fun!

If you have time:
Make sure that when you create the scenario you send it to a neutral/non-player friend that you trust and let them read it to see if you have all bases covered. Then ask the players for background that will add some spice to their history. Tell them that you MAY OR MAY NOT Use the History and to not be offended if you don't.

Relax, and let them do the talking (role play with each other as they get comfortable in their new characters).
Aliens make good baddies (adds horror to the game).

Robots make similar baddies (make them be the ultimate slaves to a possible real villain).

Monsters and demons are good for a scare too. Make sure that you play up the fear in the general populous. (e.g.: the vampires have a taste for young children and they have just taken over the high school grounds during the prom... etc. Searching for the right balance of fear and gore is also a trial.. But be receptive to their requests to tune down such terror.).

Super Mutants also but they may be just as fearful of you and may attack to just get away. New mutants may be under the control of another more powerful one.

There is more but I think you got the point.

Cinos wrote:

Colt47 wrote:People seem to forget that balance does not mean the PCs have an exactly 50/50 chance of success. Balance in a game is setting the chance of success to what is expected of the situation the PCs are being thrown into.

In part; It is also a factor to ensure one option or play style does not completely overshadow others, de-legitimizing them as choices for simply being far worse then other options open to the player (Such as two pistols with the same stats, cost, and general availability, but one has +1 to Strike. Why use the other?).

Character selection options fall more into the narrative category than game balance unless you are referring to the selection of MDC or SDC characters in a game. For example, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have a magic using character in a Coalition strike team because they don't typically condone magic users. Likewise, it would make little sense for a soldier to be teaming up with a bunch of wild west diggers since the most that guy will be doing is lounging around eating all the rations and booze while the rest of the group is doing their job. Super hero characters can get into a bit of a gray area, though.

As for play style: It is a people issue more than a game balance issue. From personal experience, if a game is balanced even a munchkin will find it entertaining and at least somewhat challenging. Also, everyone is different: Some people like to play in a manner that keeps them detached from their character, while others go at playing their characters like professional (or not so professional) actors. So in the end you could have a perfectly balanced game and still have play style issues.

By the way, the example given for restricting a gun because it has a +1 bonus to strike seems a bit whimsical given the gaming system we are talking about.

Colt47 wrote:Character selection options fall more into the narrative category than game balance unless you are referring to the selection of MDC or SDC characters in a game. For example, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have a magic using character in a Coalition strike team because they don't typically condone magic users. Likewise, it would make little sense for a soldier to be teaming up with a bunch of wild west diggers since the most that guy will be doing is lounging around eating all the rations and booze while the rest of the group is doing their job. Super hero characters can get into a bit of a gray area, though.

As for play style: It is a people issue more than a game balance issue. From personal experience, if a game is balanced even a munchkin will find it entertaining and at least somewhat challenging. Also, everyone is different: Some people like to play in a manner that keeps them detached from their character, while others go at playing their characters like professional (or not so professional) actors. So in the end you could have a perfectly balanced game and still have play style issues.

By the way, the example given for restricting a gun because it has a +1 bonus to strike seems a bit whimsical given the gaming system we are talking about.

First part sounds like an interesting story to me. Some experiment by the CS, or a hired merc? A Mage in hiding at a base fresh out of stalkers / dog boys, and not slated for a fresh batch due to a remote location / demand of the war with Tolkeen, etc. Or used as an outsider, who's not 'in' the group, but often helps / shows up / works alongside for their own agenda (say when pushing against Dunscon, what have you). Pro soldier working with the diggers is easy work, bodyguard, rogue soldier turned treasure-hunter (just needs to pick up the right skills or learn as they go), or lazy drunkard who's good with a gun not like that's unthinkable in a treasure hunt. Or a plant from a government looking to hedge some bets, party finds the treasure, he's under orders to make sure the government gets it, or at least their cut of it. Nothing creates good drama like inter-party conflicts (Course, know your group first).

I do agree that munchkins tend to enjoy games much more in a balanced game even if all they care about is being the biggest and baddest out there, no one has fun for long if it's just given to them.

The trio of heroes seem balanced with the short description, I'd have to actually know their relative damage outputs and skill setups, but you have a typical group (Well almost), a big tank and damage soak, a damage dealer, and a stealth member. Invisibility + Electrical damage could prove pretty good, but it depends if she's allowed to remain hidden while attacking or the relative cost and time to reactivate her invisibility during combat, and the damage of her Electrical stuffs (Note, I don't play HU more then once a decade and don't own them, so don't have hard numbers for these things). Of them, the shape-shifter seems the most likely to fall behind in overall, since its up to the GM to ensure she remains more useful and that her powers / skill sets remain relevant since it does not seem she's a good combat fighter, leaving her with less flexibility. The same can be true of Metal, but his ability to really lead the way in a fight should counter balance this, and how hard he hits (along with things like how consistently, and how many counters exist, like if a flying bird man with a laser going to own him because he can't respond in kind, and must rely on Bolt?). As a final note, have they already started planning on using Metal as a focal point for electrical shocks by having him grapple and sending the jolts through? Because that would be sweet.

Cinos wrote:

Colt47 wrote:Character selection options fall more into the narrative category than game balance unless you are referring to the selection of MDC or SDC characters in a game. For example, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have a magic using character in a Coalition strike team because they don't typically condone magic users. Likewise, it would make little sense for a soldier to be teaming up with a bunch of wild west diggers since the most that guy will be doing is lounging around eating all the rations and booze while the rest of the group is doing their job. Super hero characters can get into a bit of a gray area, though.

As for play style: It is a people issue more than a game balance issue. From personal experience, if a game is balanced even a munchkin will find it entertaining and at least somewhat challenging. Also, everyone is different: Some people like to play in a manner that keeps them detached from their character, while others go at playing their characters like professional (or not so professional) actors. So in the end you could have a perfectly balanced game and still have play style issues.

By the way, the example given for restricting a gun because it has a +1 bonus to strike seems a bit whimsical given the gaming system we are talking about.

First part sounds like an interesting story to me. Some experiment by the CS, or a hired merc? A Mage in hiding at a base fresh out of stalkers / dog boys, and not slated for a fresh batch due to a remote location / demand of the war with Tolkeen, etc. Or used as an outsider, who's not 'in' the group, but often helps / shows up / works alongside for their own agenda (say when pushing against Dunscon, what have you). Pro soldier working with the diggers is easy work, bodyguard, rogue soldier turned treasure-hunter (just needs to pick up the right skills or learn as they go), or lazy drunkard who's good with a gun not like that's unthinkable in a treasure hunt. Or a plant from a government looking to hedge some bets, party finds the treasure, he's under orders to make sure the government gets it, or at least their cut of it. Nothing creates good drama like inter-party conflicts (Course, know your group first).

I do agree that munchkins tend to enjoy games much more in a balanced game even if all they care about is being the biggest and baddest out there, no one has fun for long if it's just given to them.

The trio of heroes seem balanced with the short description, I'd have to actually know their relative damage outputs and skill setups, but you have a typical group (Well almost), a big tank and damage soak, a damage dealer, and a stealth member. Invisibility + Electrical damage could prove pretty good, but it depends if she's allowed to remain hidden while attacking or the relative cost and time to reactivate her invisibility during combat, and the damage of her Electrical stuffs (Note, I don't play HU more then once a decade and don't own them, so don't have hard numbers for these things). Of them, the shape-shifter seems the most likely to fall behind in overall, since its up to the GM to ensure she remains more useful and that her powers / skill sets remain relevant since it does not seem she's a good combat fighter, leaving her with less flexibility. The same can be true of Metal, but his ability to really lead the way in a fight should counter balance this, and how hard he hits (along with things like how consistently, and how many counters exist, like if a flying bird man with a laser going to own him because he can't respond in kind, and must rely on Bolt?). As a final note, have they already started planning on using Metal as a focal point for electrical shocks by having him grapple and sending the jolts through? Because that would be sweet.

You see story opportunity, I see player ignoring the theme of the game and about to cause major issues by generating player drama through in GAME drama. If someone allows a player to play a magic user in a Coalition military party, then the same option must also be available to the rest of the players. If the option is available to the rest of the group, than you might as well not be playing a coalition military party and pick a different game.

Playing a pen and paper RPG is not story writing and in fact has different complexities than writing a story. The exception is writing the background story of a gaming world, which IS story writing for the sake of creating an atmosphere and backdrop through which to provide some common ground for the players and GM. In fact, this is actually an issue with some game designers as they don't realize that the same things that make non-interactive media work do not work in interactive media.

Colt47 wrote:You see story opportunity, I see player ignoring the theme of the game and about to cause major issues by generating player drama through in GAME drama. If someone allows a player to play a magic user in a Coalition military party, then the same option must also be available to the rest of the players. If the option is available to the rest of the group, than you might as well not be playing a coalition military party and pick a different game.

Playing a pen and paper RPG is not story writing and in fact has different complexities than writing a story. The exception is writing the background story of a gaming world, which IS story writing for the sake of creating an atmosphere and backdrop through which to provide some common ground for the players and GM. In fact, this is actually an issue with some game designers as they don't realize that the same things that make non-interactive media work do not work in interactive media.

Well then said players either need to be ejected or grow up. Yes, there should be a consensus between players and GM to style of the game and theme of the game. I think I've only had to force a theme onto a group once, the rest of the time it was their own choice as a group.

And while table top RPGs is not exactly story writing, it bares many similar traits at least enough they are comparable things.

Yessir.

Cinos wrote:

Colt47 wrote:Character selection options fall more into the narrative category than game balance unless you are referring to the selection of MDC or SDC characters in a game. For example, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have a magic using character in a Coalition strike team because they don't typically condone magic users. Likewise, it would make little sense for a soldier to be teaming up with a bunch of wild west diggers since the most that guy will be doing is lounging around eating all the rations and booze while the rest of the group is doing their job. Super hero characters can get into a bit of a gray area, though.

As for play style: It is a people issue more than a game balance issue. From personal experience, if a game is balanced even a munchkin will find it entertaining and at least somewhat challenging. Also, everyone is different: Some people like to play in a manner that keeps them detached from their character, while others go at playing their characters like professional (or not so professional) actors. So in the end you could have a perfectly balanced game and still have play style issues.

By the way, the example given for restricting a gun because it has a +1 bonus to strike seems a bit whimsical given the gaming system we are talking about.

First part sounds like an interesting story to me. Some experiment by the CS, or a hired merc? A Mage in hiding at a base fresh out of stalkers / dog boys, and not slated for a fresh batch due to a remote location / demand of the war with Tolkeen, etc. Or used as an outsider, who's not 'in' the group, but often helps / shows up / works alongside for their own agenda (say when pushing against Dunscon, what have you). Pro soldier working with the diggers is easy work, bodyguard, rogue soldier turned treasure-hunter (just needs to pick up the right skills or learn as they go), or lazy drunkard who's good with a gun not like that's unthinkable in a treasure hunt. Or a plant from a government looking to hedge some bets, party finds the treasure, he's under orders to make sure the government gets it, or at least their cut of it. Nothing creates good drama like inter-party conflicts (Course, know your group first).

I do agree that munchkins tend to enjoy games much more in a balanced game even if all they care about is being the biggest and baddest out there, no one has fun for long if it's just given to them.

The trio of heroes seem balanced with the short description, I'd have to actually know their relative damage outputs and skill setups, but you have a typical group (Well almost), a big tank and damage soak, a damage dealer, and a stealth member. Invisibility + Electrical damage could prove pretty good, but it depends if she's allowed to remain hidden while attacking or the relative cost and time to reactivate her invisibility during combat, and the damage of her Electrical stuffs (Note, I don't play HU more then once a decade and don't own them, so don't have hard numbers for these things). Of them, the shape-shifter seems the most likely to fall behind in overall, since its up to the GM to ensure she remains more useful and that her powers / skill sets remain relevant since it does not seem she's a good combat fighter, leaving her with less flexibility. The same can be true of Metal, but his ability to really lead the way in a fight should counter balance this, and how hard he hits (along with things like how consistently, and how many counters exist, like if a flying bird man with a laser going to own him because he can't respond in kind, and must rely on Bolt?). As a final note, have they already started planning on using Metal as a focal point for electrical shocks by having him grapple and sending the jolts through? Because that would be sweet.

Nobody has tried that yet. 1st gaming session didn't have any battles at all. This week we will have some battles since I need to do some team building and that's the best way I know of.

Cinos wrote:

Colt47 wrote:You see story opportunity, I see player ignoring the theme of the game and about to cause major issues by generating player drama through in GAME drama. If someone allows a player to play a magic user in a Coalition military party, then the same option must also be available to the rest of the players. If the option is available to the rest of the group, than you might as well not be playing a coalition military party and pick a different game.

Playing a pen and paper RPG is not story writing and in fact has different complexities than writing a story. The exception is writing the background story of a gaming world, which IS story writing for the sake of creating an atmosphere and backdrop through which to provide some common ground for the players and GM. In fact, this is actually an issue with some game designers as they don't realize that the same things that make non-interactive media work do not work in interactive media.

Well then said players either need to be ejected or grow up. Yes, there should be a consensus between players and GM to style of the game and theme of the game. I think I've only had to force a theme onto a group once, the rest of the time it was their own choice as a group.

And while table top RPGs is not exactly story writing, it bares many similar traits at least enough they are comparable things.

Why would the player be deserving of the scolding when the GM is the one responsible for allowing the player to make the choice that created the drama in the first place?

Players do not follow scripts: they follow the constructed direction of the game while providing their own unique twists on the experience. This means that each individual player, even if they are all playing the same OCC, will be unique and interesting. The second a GM allows someone to play something outside the normal parameters of the game, they are pulling attention away from the rest of the group and putting it on that individual.

Colt47 wrote:

Cinos wrote:

Colt47 wrote:You see story opportunity, I see player ignoring the theme of the game and about to cause major issues by generating player drama through in GAME drama. If someone allows a player to play a magic user in a Coalition military party, then the same option must also be available to the rest of the players. If the option is available to the rest of the group, than you might as well not be playing a coalition military party and pick a different game.

Playing a pen and paper RPG is not story writing and in fact has different complexities than writing a story. The exception is writing the background story of a gaming world, which IS story writing for the sake of creating an atmosphere and backdrop through which to provide some common ground for the players and GM. In fact, this is actually an issue with some game designers as they don't realize that the same things that make non-interactive media work do not work in interactive media.

Well then said players either need to be ejected or grow up. Yes, there should be a consensus between players and GM to style of the game and theme of the game. I think I've only had to force a theme onto a group once, the rest of the time it was their own choice as a group.

And while table top RPGs is not exactly story writing, it bares many similar traits at least enough they are comparable things.

Why would the player be deserving of the scolding when the GM is the one responsible for allowing the player to make the choice that created the drama in the first place?

Players do not follow scripts: they follow the constructed direction of the game while providing their own unique twists on the experience. This means that each individual player, even if they are all playing the same OCC, will be unique and interesting. The second a GM allows someone to play something outside the normal parameters of the game, they are pulling attention away from the rest of the group and putting it on that individual.

Because all RPGs are a social contract between all players (GM is a player, s/he intents to enjoy their night just as much as a player). Creating Drama and being a raging %#*! breaks this social contract. That person should suffer social results from their actions and learn to keep themselves in line, or be ejected as needed. There is a difference between following rules of a game, balancing a game, and trying to police players into correct behavior. A games balance should not include attempting to dictate the behavior of your players, and it never should need to. Said player just needs a broken nose. Or I suppose if you have something against violence, they can sit in the hall where they won't be disruptive.

A games balance should not include attempting to dictate the behavior of your players, and it never should need to. Said player just needs a broken nose.

My previous comments never included dictating the behavior of the players, it included limiting the choices of the player so as to provide a unified and ultimately fair game experience.

Because all RPGs are a social contract between all players (GM is a player, s/he intents to enjoy their night just as much as a player).

Glad to hear you admit that it can be just as much the GMs fault for the issue as the player. This doesn't exactly answer the question as to why it would be the players fault when the GM provided that specific player an option the other players did not have available to them and thus allow the problem to occur in the first place.

Snipping quotes to save space is one thing, going around the bulk of my post is another, re-read it a few times, it'll sink in.

Cinos wrote:Snipping quotes to save space is one thing, going around the bulk of my post is another, re-read it a few times, it'll sink in.

No not really. The solution you propose does not deal with the root of the problem. Then again, what I original wrote is probably a bit ambiguous and maybe not explained all that well, so I do understand where you are coming from.

The reasons why it would be the GMs fault in this particular case is because the GM allowed a player to make a choice that is not allowed to the rest of the group that has some sort of advantage over the other commonly available choices. For example, allowing someone to play an Battle Cat with supernatural strength and MDC while the rest of the group is made up of SDC characters of some sort.

The Root of the problem is a disruptive 10 year old. It's not the Writers fault, the Design Team, the Play Testers, GM or rest of the parties fault they're unable to play with a group. Only fix is ejection / pain.

Cinos wrote:The Root of the problem is a disruptive 10 year old. It's not the Writers fault, the Design Team, the Play Testers, GM or rest of the parties fault they're unable to play with a group. Only fix is ejection / pain.

This conversation probably ended about two posts ago considering where this is going. The balancing of a game is something that is handled in terms of intelligent design. It is not handled by ejecting players because they are unhappy with a flaw brought about by ignorance on the part of the person running the game.

The solution you propose is to shove the blame onto the person who is actually the victim of the poor design choice, and thereby completely ignore the responsibility of attempting to fix the issue that caused the problem.

It's a shoddy carpenter who blames his tools.

Killer Cyborg wrote:It's a shoddy carpenter who blames his tools.

QFT

Splynnys Girlfriend wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:It's a shoddy carpenter who blames his tools.

its a shoddy carpenter who picks shoddy tools. how are ppl on this thread bad gamers for looking at shoddy tools & explaining why u need to be careful about how u work with those tools?

As far as I can tell, they're just getting mad at the hammer because it doesn't swing itself.
Or because it allows them to hit their own thumb.

Splynnys Girlfriend wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:It's a shoddy carpenter who blames his tools.

its a shoddy carpenter who picks shoddy tools. how are ppl on this thread bad gamers for looking at shoddy tools & explaining why u need to be careful about how u work with those tools?

There you go again blaming the tools... again.
The system does not do what YOU want it to do... so it must be the tools.
Ever think maybe you are trying to cut a board with a hammer and not the saw provided?

I'm a little confused on the statement "it is a shoddy carpenter that blames his tools" in that I understand the analogy, but do not understand what the references are pointing at. For one, I'm not criticizing the gaming system itself, but rather the GM designing a situation that purposefully gives one player an advantage over the others in the group. In other words I'm not criticizing the tools, but rather the finished product.

On the other hand, if the tools part of the analogy refers to players, I suppose I wouldn't personally consider people tools.

Colt47 wrote:I'm a little confused on the statement "it is a shoddy carpenter that blames his tools" in that I understand the analogy, but do not understand what the references are pointing at. For one, I'm not criticizing the gaming system itself, but rather the GM designing a situation that purposefully gives one player an advantage over the others in the group. In other words I'm not criticizing the tools, but rather the finished product.

It came mostly from "The balancing of a game is something that is handled in terms of intelligent design," which I associated with other comments about the game being unbalanced.
But with this comment, rereading that post, I'm guessing that you weren't talking about the game system, but rather the individual adventure/campaign being played by the specific players and GM in question.

On the other hand, if the tools part of the analogy refers to players, I suppose I wouldn't personally consider people tools.

You haven't met enough of them, then.

Yeah, I'm not bringing the game system itself into this discussion. That is a subject best talked about if there is some intention to actually change or arguably improve the current system, which their appears to be no sign of on the horizon.

Colt47 wrote:

Cinos wrote:The Root of the problem is a disruptive 10 year old. It's not the Writers fault, the Design Team, the Play Testers, GM or rest of the parties fault they're unable to play with a group. Only fix is ejection / pain.

This conversation probably ended about two posts ago considering where this is going. The balancing of a game is something that is handled in terms of intelligent design. It is not handled by ejecting players because they are unhappy with a flaw brought about by ignorance on the part of the person running the game.

The solution you propose is to shove the blame onto the person who is actually the victim of the poor design choice, and thereby completely ignore the responsibility of attempting to fix the issue that caused the problem.

So, bit late with a reply (Life? Am I right?), so feel free to leave sleeping dogs lay (I've too many bite marks for that to matter).

How is design choice a problem? Say you get six friends of yours to play cops and robbers. One of you gets the job of being the guy who says who got who (otherwise, odd teams). Then one guy says he wants to be a US marshal, not a Cop. Ok, same difference right? Then one's a Wizard. Wait, What? Yeah, he's got a staff, not a gun. Well, I guess that's not going to break the game or anything (in fact, you'll likely suck, everyone is going "BAM BANG! POW!" from across the yard and you need to get the drop on them). But the other guys are all like, "Well that's kinda lame, I feel like a tool every time I blast him across the yard. Bless his heart I guess . . . "

So a few players just keep getting weirded out, it's really shattering immersion for them, so they talk to the judge (you). Not like there's any written rule anywhere in the "Cops and Robbers Hall of Fame". Well, there might be, but that's all the way in Hawaii and it's too much to go, and they only have a pretend phone, and it's always the machine anyway. So call time. Let Frank the Wizard do his thing at the detraction of everyone else, (Well other then Tim, that munchkin jerk just likes screaming NAH NA GOT YOU!), or get Frank to fall in line or do what it takes to ensure _EVERYONE_ (Other then Tim) enjoys their day more.

Just like that, RPGS cannot and should not have any central balancing factor to ensure players meet theme. Everything by PB just shakes a stick at internal game and class balance and lets the GM figure that out anyway, they're too busy writing stories and NPC's and some rune weapons to really notice or care, and after 20 years or whatever, figure their players are big boys and girls and can do it themselves.

And "Shoddy Tools" is the game, the GM is the Carpenter (to a level the players too). And you can't criticizes the finished product without also adding it to the Carpenter (or wrongfully blaming the tools or the fiscal backer, the Zoning Commission, or that fugly tree next to the shed, it all comes back to the person who picked the spot, conned his banker, and used those tools).

Man I am wordy tonight . . .

1. Your example in paragraph one is incredibly ambiguous: Cops and Robbers? Ok, are we talking Dresden Files, Supernatural, Spirit of the Century, Pathfinder, Dungeons and Dragons, exalted, or one of many other systems? Are we talking about a specific setting in Palladium, such as Heroes Unlimited, Ninja's and Super Spies, Palladium Fantasy, etc?

2.

How is design choice a problem?

... Really? People write entire books on the subject of Design choices, and not just for gaming.

3. I'm not sure what I'm even reading in the second paragraph. If the players think their is an immersion problem then something went wrong with either picking the setting for the game, or the GM decided to allow a player to play something that shouldn't normally be in the game.

4.

Just like that, RPGS cannot and should not have any central balancing factor to ensure players meet theme. Everything by PB just shakes a stick at internal game and class balance and lets the GM figure that out anyway, they're too busy writing stories and NPC's and some rune weapons to really notice or care, and after 20 years or whatever, figure their players are big boys and girls and can do it themselves.

No, everything in PB does not shake a stick at internal game balance. There is game balance present in Nightbane, Robotech, Heroes Unlimited, and pretty much every setting they have, including Rifts.

My post that started this thread wasn't about the actual game of HU or Rifts being balanced or unbalanced. It was about tips for a GM to help them balance a game when characters aren't on equal playing fields.

Colt47 wrote:No, everything in PB does not shake a stick at internal game balance. There is game balance present in Nightbane, Robotech, Heroes Unlimited, and pretty much every setting they have, including Rifts.

I haven't laughed that hard in ages. Man do standup. No joke, I spilled soda all over with that punchline. Read Nightbane R.C.C / O.C.C then read any other O.C.C that does not have Nightbane in the name. Also, find out who else used Cops and Robbers as an analogy for RPG's, you might like the guy. Smart chap, writes pretty well so I've heard at least.

The entire post was about the fact players are highly responible for ensuring thematic sense of a game is maintained. This includes a games "Power Level", games where everyone is a Demi-God, Dragon and Lizard Mage can be fun. So can with everyone being Mystic Knights, Cyber Knights and whatever. So can where you have a Vagabond, a Wilderness Scout, and a Saloon Bum. It's when you have a Vagabond, a CS Cyborg and a Demi-God where things fall apart (or can). Only the players and GM can limit these choices, PB Can't and Won't.

Step back;

My post that started this thread wasn't about the actual game of HU or Rifts being balanced or unbalanced. It was about tips for a GM to help them balance a game when characters aren't on equal playing fields.

I apologize for probably derailing the thread then on a tangent (I don't know it was me, I'd have to look, but it's a safe bet). This will be long, I'm unable to explain anything, much less complex gaming interactions without being long winded.

First, figure out what each of your characters do (and by your characters I mean your Players Characters, but throw common NPC's who are actually stated out and useful to the group into that lump too). Figure out if they're one dimensional (i.e useless outside of a fight, great a spying, but can't fix a car, speak Spanish or fight, etc). Include into these calculations any personality faults of the Player or the Character (i.e the character has Public Speaking, but it's never used to sweet talk, just to haggle or inspire underlings, etc). It's possible players can break the theme or the reason they've been shoehorned into that role, but it's uncommon and can be dealt with.

Now for example (I'll use Rifts as an example, it's common and huge and prone to wacky stuff and makes for fun examples).
Character 1, Fred, makes a Juicer. He had some pretty sweet stats already, and the juice just sent his PP through the roof. But yall only had RUE to work out of, so no Hyperion for him. So, he's pretty tough, super agile, and great at fighting. He's melee geared though (he thought it was stupid his stupid high strike bonus did crap for his guns, so Vibro-Blades and Nerual Mace paired weapons!). So in combat, he's a tank. His S.D.C is meh, and he only wears the light armor, but his dodge and parry are good enough that he rarely gets hit, so he's still sucking up the focus of the enemy firepower. If he can't get into close combat, or your fighting say, a tank, he's pretty limited to just that, but he'll trump any Melee opponent. So toss in a Battle Magus with a Fury Blade as a bad guy to give him a run for his money. He can't deal with Blinding Flash by himself, and the Battle Magus can match his speed straight out. Even a Gold Type Borg will be hard for just Vibros to hack through. He's going to be ideal against Soldiers who can't get away, once he closes those melee weapons will drop anything in a few turns. No other player can match that! Out of combat, he picked up supports, most of his skills where burnt picking Physicals, leaving him with just bare bones, he got some detection stuff, so he helps the party by watching out for ambushes, doing pat downs, and keeping an eye open for pick pockets and con-men. He's also go Pilot Hovercraft at a good rate (along with Hover-cycles for himself), and Demolitions (To help with those tanks). Nothing fancy. Out of combat events he's just really looking to get back into combat so he can be an all star again. This means the game will want a few fights, or risk of fights, but it should never be the central theme, or he'll over power the other two characters who are less combat focused.

Now, the other character, Charlie Brown-san, is a Merc Soldier. Sure it's another combat class, but he's taken a different road. Knowing P.E, P.S and P.P don't matter all that much in the modern world anyway (heck, Power Suit takes care of almost all those problems), and some fairly average stats, with an okay I.Q for some fair skills, his only stellar roll was M.E, so he's a tough as nails gritty McGuyver (How is that name not in my Auto-Correct?). He picks up the Demo MOS, mostly for the Electronics and Mechanical skills to help match his character meta, Demolitions and a free WP tacked on (along with a few skills that are corner-case or useless) as gravy. He takes Jury Rigging, and a few other repair skills he clears with the GM to match his background of an Ex-Operator turned hired gun and wandering protector. Now, he knows his way around a NG - LG6, but he's not going to be mowing through a squad of CS troopers any time soon without going all out with some costly ordinance. He could do it, but there's GM control built in to that (Can he get more? Does it also draw the attention of the base a half mile away?). He, unlike the Juicer, is able to set up some really cunning stuff, trap the exits with explosives or gas, or even a rigged up gun that jabs the guys side as he enters a black room (He cut the lights), but it's really a dummy with a radio used to keep some vital lynch-pin of the security team locked down while the party makes a heist. He can do quick fixes on broken gear (and thus let the GM be brutal about gear, guns jamming, clips failing to eject or starting to overload, requiring his intervention). That Juicer needs some support, he falls apart when they hit hard targets anyway, someone who can jam up a tank tread, or play decoy to let his buddy get in on the action without drawing every laser in a 3,000 Foot radius (Even juicers have limits).

The pairs personality and innate differences can also be brought into light. If I was anyone, I wouldn't trust someone willing to sell his entire life span for a cheap thrill and a glorified drug rush with much. A handyman who can fix anything from a gun to a car? Well that's a man I can trust. NPC response alone can be used as a balancing factor if you think the Juicer steals the show or is too far up on the scale to help bring a more even field in the big picture.

In summation, using a characters weakness to ensure the strengths of others are brought to light is a core key of maintaining a party balance. If two characters are about not fighting and using skill support and a third is only about fighting (the other two can help out, but they're ducking and covering, not standing in the fray), then most sessions should have about a fight, and the rest should be about skills. The fighter should miss out then, unless there is an actual problem (I'll add as a spoiler tag, space and derailment avoidance), and know that he's just as screwed alone without someone to use Streetwise, talk to the cops, scout the place, watch his back, or whatever, as the others know they're in rough shape when stuff goes down and he's not around.

Cinos wrote:

Colt47 wrote:No, everything in PB does not shake a stick at internal game balance. There is game balance present in Nightbane, Robotech, Heroes Unlimited, and pretty much every setting they have, including Rifts.

I haven't laughed that hard in ages. Man do standup. No joke, I spilled soda all over with that punchline. Read Nightbane R.C.C / O.C.C then read any other O.C.C that does not have Nightbane in the name. Also, find out who else used Cops and Robbers as an analogy for RPG's, you might like the guy. Smart chap, writes pretty well so I've heard at least.

The entire post was about the fact players are highly responible for ensuring thematic sense of a game is maintained. This includes a games "Power Level", games where everyone is a Demi-God, Dragon and Lizard Mage can be fun. So can with everyone being Mystic Knights, Cyber Knights and whatever. So can where you have a Vagabond, a Wilderness Scout, and a Saloon Bum. It's when you have a Vagabond, a CS Cyborg and a Demi-God where things fall apart (or can). Only the players and GM can limit these choices, PB Can't and Won't.

Step back;

My post that started this thread wasn't about the actual game of HU or Rifts being balanced or unbalanced. It was about tips for a GM to help them balance a game when characters aren't on equal playing fields.

I apologize for probably derailing the thread then on a tangent (I don't know it was me, I'd have to look, but it's a safe bet). This will be long, I'm unable to explain anything, much less complex gaming interactions without being long winded.

First, figure out what each of your characters do (and by your characters I mean your Players Characters, but throw common NPC's who are actually stated out and useful to the group into that lump too). Figure out if they're one dimensional (i.e useless outside of a fight, great a spying, but can't fix a car, speak Spanish or fight, etc). Include into these calculations any personality faults of the Player or the Character (i.e the character has Public Speaking, but it's never used to sweet talk, just to haggle or inspire underlings, etc). It's possible players can break the theme or the reason they've been shoehorned into that role, but it's uncommon and can be dealt with.

Now for example (I'll use Rifts as an example, it's common and huge and prone to wacky stuff and makes for fun examples).
Character 1, Fred, makes a Juicer. He had some pretty sweet stats already, and the juice just sent his PP through the roof. But yall only had RUE to work out of, so no Hyperion for him. So, he's pretty tough, super agile, and great at fighting. He's melee geared though (he thought it was stupid his stupid high strike bonus did crap for his guns, so Vibro-Blades and Nerual Mace paired weapons!). So in combat, he's a tank. His S.D.C is meh, and he only wears the light armor, but his dodge and parry are good enough that he rarely gets hit, so he's still sucking up the focus of the enemy firepower. If he can't get into close combat, or your fighting say, a tank, he's pretty limited to just that, but he'll trump any Melee opponent. So toss in a Battle Magus with a Fury Blade as a bad guy to give him a run for his money. He can't deal with Blinding Flash by himself, and the Battle Magus can match his speed straight out. Even a Gold Type Borg will be hard for just Vibros to hack through. He's going to be ideal against Soldiers who can't get away, once he closes those melee weapons will drop anything in a few turns. No other player can match that! Out of combat, he picked up supports, most of his skills where burnt picking Physicals, leaving him with just bare bones, he got some detection stuff, so he helps the party by watching out for ambushes, doing pat downs, and keeping an eye open for pick pockets and con-men. He's also go Pilot Hovercraft at a good rate (along with Hover-cycles for himself), and Demolitions (To help with those tanks). Nothing fancy. Out of combat events he's just really looking to get back into combat so he can be an all star again. This means the game will want a few fights, or risk of fights, but it should never be the central theme, or he'll over power the other two characters who are less combat focused.

Now, the other character, Charlie Brown-san, is a Merc Soldier. Sure it's another combat class, but he's taken a different road. Knowing P.E, P.S and P.P don't matter all that much in the modern world anyway (heck, Power Suit takes care of almost all those problems), and some fairly average stats, with an okay I.Q for some fair skills, his only stellar roll was M.E, so he's a tough as nails gritty McGuyver (How is that name not in my Auto-Correct?). He picks up the Demo MOS, mostly for the Electronics and Mechanical skills to help match his character meta, Demolitions and a free WP tacked on (along with a few skills that are corner-case or useless) as gravy. He takes Jury Rigging, and a few other repair skills he clears with the GM to match his background of an Ex-Operator turned hired gun and wandering protector. Now, he knows his way around a NG - LG6, but he's not going to be mowing through a squad of CS troopers any time soon without going all out with some costly ordinance. He could do it, but there's GM control built in to that (Can he get more? Does it also draw the attention of the base a half mile away?). He, unlike the Juicer, is able to set up some really cunning stuff, trap the exits with explosives or gas, or even a rigged up gun that jabs the guys side as he enters a black room (He cut the lights), but it's really a dummy with a radio used to keep some vital lynch-pin of the security team locked down while the party makes a heist. He can do quick fixes on broken gear (and thus let the GM be brutal about gear, guns jamming, clips failing to eject or starting to overload, requiring his intervention). That Juicer needs some support, he falls apart when they hit hard targets anyway, someone who can jam up a tank tread, or play decoy to let his buddy get in on the action without drawing every laser in a 3,000 Foot radius (Even juicers have limits).

The pairs personality and innate differences can also be brought into light. If I was anyone, I wouldn't trust someone willing to sell his entire life span for a cheap thrill and a glorified drug rush with much. A handyman who can fix anything from a gun to a car? Well that's a man I can trust. NPC response alone can be used as a balancing factor if you think the Juicer steals the show or is too far up on the scale to help bring a more even field in the big picture.

In summation, using a characters weakness to ensure the strengths of others are brought to light is a core key of maintaining a party balance. If two characters are about not fighting and using skill support and a third is only about fighting (the other two can help out, but they're ducking and covering, not standing in the fray), then most sessions should have about a fight, and the rest should be about skills. The fighter should miss out then, unless there is an actual problem (I'll add as a spoiler tag, space and derailment avoidance), and know that he's just as screwed alone without someone to use Streetwise, talk to the cops, scout the place, watch his back, or whatever, as the others know they're in rough shape when stuff goes down and he's not around.

Spoiler:

Actual problems include GM mistakes like allowing a Cyber Knight in a game of Vagabonds, this requires the GM to swallow his pride and go Oops. Talk to said player, and figure out a good work around for it, or talk to the 'weaker' characters and see if they don't mind getting powered up a bit (Vagabonds with Grenade Launchers and those sweet P-Beam pistols in the first Mercs book). Other real problems are actual game design. At times designers will screw up and not notice a rather potent combo, like Carpet of Adhesion in a game with Ranged Weapons and High Powered Explosives, because that's not how their players played. Or setting a Mind Mage next to a Psi-Healer in Palladium. One is better then the other at what they do. Mind mage can pick up some healing powers and be just as good, AND mind wipe someone or rip them in half with TK, you know, whatevers needed at the time.

And really? Design of games is a really vague area, trust me, it's kinda what I've spent my live doing. It's like art School, you can give right answers in class, and be wrong out of it, or you can sleep through it all and make right choices about it outside of school. It's too flexible, too vague, and too evolving to truly study in real time, only "History of Game Design" would be a right / wrong book, or class or whatever. It's why games that have a same central mechanic change over time, like D&D, Warhammer, WoW and everything else that has changed (Ever). Some times one thing is right, a year later its crappy, broken and ugly. That's bloody design. But I'll stop derailing this poor mans thread, you wanna talk design, PM me and we'll talk design. Just unplug your ears and don't just skim what I write.

This is more like it!

Those are a lot of good ideas. After my 2nd session my players had a great time and said that I am doing much better. We are going to alternate weeks now so this next weekend we are gonna play D&D 2nd edition but the week after we are going to play more HU.

I am going to try to think more along these lines though.

Cinos wrote:

Colt47 wrote:No, everything in PB does not shake a stick at internal game balance. There is game balance present in Nightbane, Robotech, Heroes Unlimited, and pretty much every setting they have, including Rifts.

I haven't laughed that hard in ages. Man do standup. No joke, I spilled soda all over with that punchline. Read Nightbane R.C.C / O.C.C then read any other O.C.C that does not have Nightbane in the name. Also, find out who else used Cops and Robbers as an analogy for RPG's, you might like the guy. Smart chap, writes pretty well so I've heard at least.

The entire post was about the fact players are highly responible for ensuring thematic sense of a game is maintained. This includes a games "Power Level", games where everyone is a Demi-God, Dragon and Lizard Mage can be fun. So can with everyone being Mystic Knights, Cyber Knights and whatever. So can where you have a Vagabond, a Wilderness Scout, and a Saloon Bum. It's when you have a Vagabond, a CS Cyborg and a Demi-God where things fall apart (or can). Only the players and GM can limit these choices, PB Can't and Won't.

I have the Nightbane book, have read it many times, and yes the OCCs are balanced for the setting they are presented in. Again, when balancing a game system it doesn't mean everything has an equal 50/50 chance of beating something else, but if you read my previous postings in the thread where I posted Narrative Mechanics you would already know that is my stance on the subject.

However, this thread is about balancing games being created by a GM using a tool set, not the tool set itself. Also, players may be a problem, but they are not a cause of game balance issues: Game balance issues ride mostly in the hands of the GM and the choices the GM makes before starting and during the game. Bad behavior aside; players can only exploit a problem if it exists in the first place.