Can we now admit the new 7th Sea is floundering?

[noman]

His criticism ignores the fact that people want different things. If everyone in the world wanted exactly the same thing out of RPGs as John Wick and yet D&D was popular, that'd be inexplicable. But he'd actually have a valid point. But everyone doesn't want the same thing out of RPGs and what a lot of people want involves various kinds of game balance.

There's not a single right way to design or play games, as much as any particular person might want otherwise.

This.

I read Wick's essay. Went in favorably, but that changed the more I read. He totally lost me at "The reason roleplaying games are a unique art form..." I felt myself invoking my inner Pundit.

Some people like complicated weapon charts and detailed, tactical rules (I'm not one of them).

But I think game balance is important. A game doesn't necessarily have to be fair or perfectly balanced, but the mechanics should be solid enough and the key elements are balanced enough to survive basic human asshatery (e.g. GM mistakes and powergamers looking to break the game).

I've gotten to be very suspicious whenever I hear somebody saying "Something, something because The Story, something!". As GM, I don't see myself as a storyteller. I create a framework setting and related story hooks. My players engage these and create the real story around the framework I've built. My job is to make sure they have fun and referee the process. Nothing takes the laughter out of a game table more than one or more players feeling they've been shortchanged by a ruleset that favors Character Type A vs. Character Type B.

And my only, and I mean my only, concern is to make sure my players are having a good time.

If storytelling the the only thing that matters, I'll just go write a book.:p

 

[TristramEvans]

Game balance is a concept that confuses the hell out of me, to be honest. If it was a wargame or PvP, I'd understand why player characters all needed to roughly equal in combat, but since every RPG outside of Paranoia I've played has the implicit premise of players working cooperatively as a team, I can't wrap my head around one player being better at something than another mattering at all.

 

[Johnny Blade]

Some people like complicated weapon charts and detailed, tactical rules

I'll go as far as to say that some people like having a "character creation" minigame like 3.5's; with which they can pass whole otherwise improductive afternoons searching for the better optimized way to make the character they want. And that they're not simply entitled to their opinion, but that they're correct in doing so as long as the whole group does so. Finally, liking doing this doesn't make them worse roleplayers or unpersons, au contraire they're often the most inmersed in their character of the group, If only due to sunk cost fallacy due to having invested so much time in it.
Writing this in the '90s would have costed me an hand, but here we go.

 

[Johnny Blade]

Game balance is a concept that confuses the hell out of me, to be honest. If it was a wargame or PvP, I'd understand why player characters all needed to roughly equal in combat, but since every RPG outside of Paranoia I've played has the implicit premise of players working cooperatively as a team, I can't wrap my head around one player being better at something than another mattering at all.

It's only really a problem in combat heavy games where having a character being notably stronger or weaker than the averange makes creating encounters for the group a living hell for the GM.
The less encounters, fewer the problems IME.

 

[noman]

Game balance is a concept that confuses the hell out of me, to be honest. If it was a wargame or PvP, I'd understand why player characters all needed to roughly equal in combat, but since every RPG outside of Paranoia I've played has the implicit premise of players working cooperatively as a team, I can't wrap my head around one player being better at something than another mattering at all.

Agreed, but I'm not talking strictly about combat effectiveness. The Muscle should be better at murdering things (and related skills) than the non-Muscle.

For my purposes I define balance in two ways. First, on a character level. PCs don't have to be equally capable at combat; they need to be equally capable at responding and overcoming threats and challenges relevant to the role they may choose to play within the game and the party. For example, the Muscle should be as good as Muscle things as the Face should be as good at social things and the Jack-of-all-trades should be good at adapting and versatility. Character design should be reasonably mechanically consistent across character types in the context of letting characters fulfill their roles effectively.

Second, is on a system level. Mechanical bugs and exploits that allow an inventive player to dominate the other players in the game, usually through overwhelming force. Basically powergamer stuff.

In both cases, what I'm looking to avoid is a single, well-designed character dominating the roles of other characters.

And for the record, I don't have anything against powergamers. I have powergamer tendencies. I just don't want them overwhelming my other players because of a game system exploit.

At the risk of bring up a sore subject, my favorite example of this the Amber diceless systems' sorcery power. Designed correctly and played cleverly, a sorcery character can lay down some deep, high-fat cheese all over a game. They can out-murder the Muscle characters with ease. They can out sneak the Sneaky guy. Etc. etc.

This is an extreme example. Some games don't have these kinds of problems while I think others are more prone to them.

For a long while, I was of the opinion that game balance was irreverent. I've recently changed my mind, as I'm relearning how to be a decent GM after a long hiatus and working with a new group of players. Recent events have helped change my mind.

Finally, I'll point out that this is just my POV. Differnt styles for differnt tables. I'm not suggesting that game balance must be considered in the same manner as I do.

 

[Stevethulhu]

Personally I think he's 100% right about game balance, and I've been saying it longer than he has. But I also don't care if anyone agrees with me.

Wick's idea of balance is you do what he says and don't do anything else. And above all, don't challenge the GM.

 

[noman]

I'll go as far as to say that some people like having a "character creation" minigame like 3.5's; with which they can pass whole otherwise improductive afternoons searching for the better optimized way to make the character they want. And that they're not simply entitled to their opinion, but that they're correct in doing so as long as the whole group does so. Finally, liking doing this doesn't make them worse roleplayers or unpersons, au contraire they're often the most inmersed in their character of the group, If only due to sunk cost fallacy due to having invested so much time in it.
Writing this in the '90s would have costed me an hand, but here we go.

This.

And I'm exactly the kind of player you're talking about. Part of the fun for me as a player is creating optimized character builds. I can still create theme-based builds for tables that aren't friendly to my gaming style, but it's not as much fun.

 

[noman]

It's only really a problem in combat heavy games where having a character being notably stronger or weaker than the averange makes creating encounters for the group a living hell for the GM.
The less encounters, fewer the problems IME.

Also this.

 

[Johnny Blade]

Wick's idea of balance is you do what he says and don't do anything else. And above all, don't challenge the GM.

Have you perchance read Play Dirty? ;)

 

[noman]

Wick's idea of balance is you do what he says and don't do anything else. And above all, don't challenge the GM.

I'm not familiar with Wick's work, so I can't really judge. But I got that impression from his essay.

 

[Stevethulhu]

Have you perchance read Play Dirty? ;)

Oddly enough, yes I have...

 

[Johnny Blade]

This.

And I'm exactly the kind of player you're talking about. Part of the fun for me as a player is creating optimized character builds. I can still create theme-based builds for tables that aren't friendly to my gaming style, but it's not as much fun.

Yup, It's the main reason people still play 3.5 and Pathfinder, the minigame is freaking entertaining AND creates replay value.
... Or classic earthdawn, now that I think about it.

 

[noman]

RPG PUB: We talk about our health problems and dietary habits in the 7th Seas thread.

We don't do it because we have to. We do it because we like it!

We play by our own rules, man. :cool:

Also, some of us (me) have the concentration limit of a rabid squirrel on meth at a strip club.*

As far as diet, I'll just say: Stay out of Texas. (SFW).

* It's why I gave up caffeine.

 

[The Butcher]

Anchovies > John Wick

There's a curious formatting error on your post by my side: before quoting it I saw it end abrubtly at "Though I". Curious. Good tastes in wines btw: I appreciate the Riesling's versatility and living in Spain atm I had the occasion to appreciate their "sherry". Whisky is the Wise man's Key but wouldn't it be a little to harsh paired with anchovy sandwiches?

Thanks. Whisky is harsh enough that it's notoriously hard to pair with food. Anchovies might do the trick. And one can always take a cue from the Japanese and have a highball with one's meal — as much ice and club soda as you deem necessary to soften the scotch.

At the risk of earning everyone's scorn, I tend to be quite liberal with water on my scotch, even as an aperitif.

Islay? Thats a strange way to spell Speyside.;)

Speyside may be gentler in the palate (most of my favorites are Speys) but not all Islays taste like liquid tar (Bruichladdich anyone?). A lightly smoked and briny malt can be a joy.

 

[daniel_ream]

Have you perchance read Play Dirty? ;)

Oh, now you've done it.

 

[Ronin]

as much ice and club soda as you deem necessary to soften the scotch.

At the risk of earning everyone's scorn, I tend to be quite liberal with water on my scotch, even as an aperitif.

The devil you say!

Speyside may be gentler in the palate (most of my favorites are Speys) but not all Islays taste like liquid tar (Bruichladdich anyone?). A lightly smoked and briny malt can be a joy.

I have had a couple that were ok. Nothing I would want to kick back with on a regular basis. But I'm always nervous to buy a bottle that I have not had before. An expensive bottle of liquor, that I don't want to drink is a problem.
I tend to stay with what I know and like, Glenfiddich, The Glenlivet, and The Macallan.
Nothing better than kicking back on the porch in the summer time with a glass of Macallan, a Java Latte Robusto cigar and a good book. Thats a nice little treat, combined with "me" time. Anyone that tells you different should be beat vigorously about the head and genitals with the largest stick you have on hand.
(Oh, and clearly I don't have much to say to say about John Wick. Not sure if I own or have played any of his games. But I do have lots to say about scotch.)

 

[The Butcher]

The devil you say!

I have had a couple that were ok. Nothing I would want to kick back with on a regular basis. But I'm always nervous to buy a bottle that I have not had before. An expensive bottle of liquor, that I don't want to drink is a problem.
I tend to stay with what I know and like, Glenfiddich, The Glenlivet, and The Macallan.
Nothing better than kicking back on the porch in the summer time with a glass of Macallan, a Java Latte Robusto cigar and a good book. Thats a nice little treat, combined with "me" time. Anyone that tells you different should be beat vigorously about the head and genitals with the largest stick you have on hand.
(Oh, and clearly I don't have much to say to say about John Wick. Not sure if I own or have played any of his games. But I do have lots to say about scotch.)

Wasting is not drinking it. Or drinking without tasting it — which is why I'm super skeptic of the whole "I drink my cask-strength stuff neat" scene. ;)

Nothing wrong with playing to your acquired tastes. Scotch is expensive! And that is a pretty good list to stick with.

 

[Tarot70]

I got about halfway through both of those essays and then my eyes glazed over.

I used HERO for over a decade, and then somehow I drifted into the 'Fuck Balance!' camp. Not that balance is necessarily a bad thing, but more that systems that place a high premium on balance and make it a primary design objective start to look like an EULA. The accretion of jargon, conditions and limitations is un-fun to read. And then, with all the moving parts there are the inevitable things that slip through anyhow. Just because two characters have the same number of points doesn't actually mean that they are comparable, so why are we counting those points?

There is also the fact that the use of the word 'balance' often equates to combat effectiveness. For that particular issue, I think that most of the time that is spent putting limits on the best possible characters would be better served by buffing the worst possible concepts that they can come up with.

But, there are lots of people who say that they want balance, but they really don't. Otherwise, we wouldn't hear about character optimization and builds and n00b traps. They are having fun gaming the system.

The simpler games that never once mention balance are more balanced than the heavier ones who shout about how balanced they are. Beyond that, reasonable people using common sense is even more balanced and less of a pain to use in practice no matter what the system looks like.

 

[TristramEvans]

History has denied us the opportunity to taste Roman garum (a fish sauce whose production, by all accounts, was just as vile, and that they put on everything). Anchovies are the next best thing.

Anchovy butter on toast and a glass of scotch. Mmm.

I've had garum (a friend into historical wargaming made up a batch and let us try). It tastes a lot like ponzu sauce, take that as you will.

 

[daniel_ream]

Just because two characters have the same number of points doesn't actually mean that they are comparable, so why are we counting those points?

Daniel's Second Law: Balance is a canard, and points don't mean anything.

 

[Belle Sorciere]

Points are a reasonable guideline for character creation. That they're not perfectly balanced is fine.

 

[TristramEvans]

Can we just accept some people like narrative mechanics and others don't. These kinds of arguments are forum cancer.

Having just read the exchange (totally missed the fun part of this thread while at work), I dont think anyone involved was pushing any OneTrueWayisms, but this subject just has so many bad memories wrapped up in it from years of BadWrongFunigans being lobbed by both groups, that it automatically evinces bad feelings no matter how many caveats are employed.

 

[noman]

Points are a reasonable guideline for character creation. That they're not perfectly balanced is fine.

This.

I've experimented with a few point-based games where I removed the point systems and replaced them with purely narrative frameworks. My group had better results with the point structures. But YMMV, different strokes, yadda yadda.

EDIT: negative was changed to narrative.

 

[noman]

BadWrongFunigan was my nickname in college.

 

[TristramEvans]

It just becomes pointless if I try to convince someone that a game they like is bad. It's like arguing about whether anchovies should be on pizza. I firmly believe they should be, but I am never going to convince my brother-in-law of that.

I had a huge argument with the misses over anchovie paste in Caesar salad. IMO, its not Caesar Salad without it, no matter what it says on the bottle of dressing

 

[TristramEvans]

I
And the title of the essay tells us that chess is not an RPG, but that leads him to the following definition of RPGs.

roleplaying game: a game in which the players are rewarded for making choices
that are consistent with the character’s motivations or further the plot of the story.

Oh, that definition hurts my brain.

 

[TristramEvans]

He's opinionated and I get the feeling some of the things he says, he doesn't always agree with. But he says them to get people talking. LIke a troll, but less personal.

I spent the latter part of the 90s and the first few years of the 2000s buying what he was selling. But when I read Play Dirty, and even more when I applied some of the advice, I kind of lost faith with John Wick. Got nothing against the guy, but his work just doesn't appeal to me the way it used to.

OK, several people now have mentioned this "Play Dirty" thing....whats its deal?

 

[TristramEvans]

Agreed, but I'm not talking strictly about combat effectiveness. The Muscle should be better at murdering things (and related skills) than the non-Muscle.

For my purposes I define balance in two ways. First, on a character level. PCs don't have to be equally capable at combat; they need to be equally capable at responding and overcoming threats and challenges relevant to the role they may choose to play within the game and the party. For example, the Muscle should be as good as Muscle things as the Face should be as good at social things and the Jack-of-all-trades should be good at adapting and versatility. Character design should be reasonably mechanically consistent across character types in the context of letting characters fulfill their roles effectively.

Second, is on a system level. Mechanical bugs and exploits that allow an inventive player to dominate the other players in the game, usually through overwhelming force. Basically powergamer stuff.

In both cases, what I'm looking to avoid is a single, well-designed character dominating the roles of other characters.

And for the record, I don't have anything against powergamers. I have powergamer tendencies. I just don't want them overwhelming my other players because of a game system exploit.

At the risk of bring up a sore subject, my favorite example of this the Amber diceless systems' sorcery power. Designed correctly and played cleverly, a sorcery character can lay down some deep, high-fat cheese all over a game. They can out-murder the Muscle characters with ease. They can out sneak the Sneaky guy. Etc. etc.

This is an extreme example. Some games don't have these kinds of problems while I think others are more prone to them.

For a long while, I was of the opinion that game balance was irreverent. I've recently changed my mind, as I'm relearning how to be a decent GM after a long hiatus and working with a new group of players. Recent events have helped change my mind.

Finally, I'll point out that this is just my POV. Differnt styles for differnt tables. I'm not suggesting that game balance must be considered in the same manner as I do.

I can really only speak for how I handle things in games I run. I'm pretty hands-on, as a GM, in the chargen process, so I don't really worry about loopholes as such. My preferred character creation method is "Character Modelling" from FASERIP, wherein the player creates the character in juts basic, literary terms, and then I translate that concept into game terms, with a bit of haggling allowed until we're both satisfied, which I realize is pretty distant from some of the more gameable systems. I don't mind a character being "powerful" or will indulge powergaming to the extent that if a player has a cool concept, I'll generally go with it so long as it fits the campaign. And I go into pretty heavy explanation about the game and what would be appropriate before play begins during the "pitch", so we're all on the same page.

As far as game balance, I look at it this way: the only thing I attempt to balance is each player's time "in the spotlight" as it were. This means, yeah, the muscle shines during combat, but it also applies to drama, intrigue, pursuing personal goals, solving puzzles, finding clues, etc. As I run "roleplay-heavy" games, this tends to mean that the spotlight revolves around character's personal issues more than anything. One of the reasons why many things that would be considered "weaknesses" or "flaws" in other games I take into account as "bonuses" during chargen (if a player has a 'dark secret', for example, then they are going to spend some time in the spotlight dealing with that during the course of a campaign).

 

[daniel_ream]

As I run "roleplay-heavy" games, this tends to mean that the spotlight revolves around character's personal issues more than anything.

I strongly recommend having a look at the Smallville RPG, then, if you can find a copy. There are some very interesting ideas in there for this kind of game style.

 

[TristramEvans]

I'll go as far as to say that some people like having a "character creation" minigame like 3.5's; with which they can pass whole otherwise improductive afternoons searching for the better optimized way to make the character they want. And that they're not simply entitled to their opinion, but that they're correct in doing so as long as the whole group does so. Finally, liking doing this doesn't make them worse roleplayers or unpersons, au contraire they're often the most inmersed in their character of the group, If only due to sunk cost fallacy due to having invested so much time in it.
Writing this in the '90s would have costed me an hand, but here we go.

I can understand that motivation. There's a game I own, Burning wheel, which I have no interest in running or playing in, but I've made tons of characters with just for fun. And I really enjoyed the "list-building" aspect of Warhammer fantasy pre-AoS; though in that case at least, there was a sort of instant gratification in that I'd get to try the list out in a game, and then go back and tweak it or do a new list before another game. Some of the things I've heard second-hand online, however, about 3.5 character optimization, where a player figures out his entire line of progression through the levels still seems alien to me. Like planning out the entire course of your character's growth during a campaign- I can't see how that ultimately would be as fun as a character growing organically as the game's events shape them. But I'm not going to cast any dispersions on how other people like to have fun.

 

[TristramEvans]

I strongly recommend having a look at the Smallville RPG, then, if you can find a copy. There are some very interesting ideas in there for this kind of game style.

I've read it, it is...well, very much not to my taste in systems. An interesting and unique approach, certainly, but I'm a bit too old school for that much meta.

 

[noman]

As far as game balance, I look at it this way: the only thing I attempt to balance is each player's time "in the spotlight" as it were. This means, yeah, the muscle shines during combat, but it also applies to drama, intrigue, pursuing personal goals, solving puzzles, finding clues, etc. As I run "roleplay-heavy" games, this tends to mean that the spotlight revolves around character's personal issues more than anything. One of the reasons why many things that would be considered "weaknesses" or "flaws" in other games I take into account as "bonuses" during chargen (if a player has a 'dark secret', for example, then they are going to spend some time in the spotlight dealing with that during the course of a campaign).

Yes, but what you're talking about is GM skill -- the ability to GM a game in such a way as every player gets his or her time in the spotlight. This is something that's independent of a game system.

My emphasis is on the mechanical side of the game system I'm using. Speaking only from my gaming experience, not all character types and designs perform equally within their area of expertise, even when given equal share of the spotlight. My point about game balance is my necessity to mitigate that imbalance as much as possible, if and when it's needed, on a mechanical level.

 

[noman]

Some of the things I've heard second-hand online, however, about 3.5 character optimization, where a player figures out his entire line of progression through the levels still seems alien to me. Like planning out the entire course of your character's growth during a campaign- I can't see how that ultimately would be as fun as a character growing organically as the game's events shape them. But I'm not going to cast any dispersions on how other people like to have fun.

There's a great deal of satisfaction in meeting the challenge of planning out character growth in fine detail. A lot more satisfaction in seeing your plan succeed throughout the course of the game as your character evolves.

There's nothing at all wrong or inferior with the organic character development style. It's just different minds work differently.

 

[TristramEvans]

Yes, but what you're talking about is GM skill -- the ability to GM a game in such a way as every player gets his or her time in the spotlight. This is something that's independent of a game system.

Fair point. Its one of the reasons I gravitate towards bare-bones systems I imagine.

My emphasis is on the mechanical side of the game system I'm using. Speaking only from my gaming experience, not all character types and designs perform equally within their area of expertise, even when given equal share of the spotlight. My point about game balance is my necessity to mitigate that imbalance as much as possible, if and when it's needed, on a mechanical level.

Hmm, I'm not certain I'm totally following. do you have examples of a game that does this well, and, more importantly, one that does it badly?

 

[TristramEvans]

There's nothing at all wrong or inferior with the organic character development style. It's just different minds work differently.

Ultimately, yeah, thats what it comes down to. I think the hobby overall would be a better place if everyone spent more time celebrating its ability to cater to so many different imaginations and creative outlets in different ways, but, well, this is the internet.

 

[noman]

Ultimately, yeah, thats what it comes down to. I think the hobby overall would be a better place if everyone spent more time celebrating its ability to cater to so many different imaginations and creative outlets in different ways, but, well, this is the internet.

That's how I see it.

To be fair, Tristram, I used to spend a lot of time on a variety of GNU/Linux forums. You think the Nerd Rage can rise in this hobby? It's got nothing on the Linux Community.

The tribalism is everywhere people are.

 

[Johnny Blade]

Ultimately, yeah, thats what it comes down to. I think the hobby overall would be a better place if everyone spent more time celebrating its ability to cater to so many different imaginations and creative outlets in different ways, but, well, this is the internet.

Also, consider that most builds from level 1 to 20 were more like experiments and exercises in style than anything else. Most people just tried to optimize their character to do something they liked and left space for organic growth. Or had a rough idea of their build wich could change due to external factors.
I've rarely had players who came to me at the start of an actual campaign with everything planned out from lv1 to 20, but I have often had friends showing me "What They Had Built This Week" saturnday evening at the Pub, and I showed them my experiments back.
It was freaking funny, that it was.

 

[noman]

Hmm, I'm not certain I'm totally following. do you have examples of a game that does this well, and, more importantly, one that does it badly?

Speaking only from my experience.

Amber Diceless does this badly. It's my favorite example. I go into the particulars in my Reflections on Amber Diceless thread.* Sorcery is the major issue, but so too are a few other powers in the game. Warfare is stronger than strength, etc. etc. Inbalances in the system.

A group of inexperienced players will pick a variety of character designs that fit their tastes. But as the game goes on, it'll eventually become apparent that players with certain attributes or powers will outshine the other players who didn't pick the same attributes or powers.

A group of experienced players know which character designs will provide the most ROI per point spent. The most powerful combos are taken. Any players who don't do this will find themselves overshadowed, and their roleplaying niche dominated by the other characters.

There are a few other games that do this as well, but not to the extreme Amber does. I won't go into them in the interest of time.

As for a system that does balance well, Cypher System is my favorite example. While there are some foci that are stronger than others, this difference is mitigated by the way the types (classes) are set up. Simply put, while some character types can do the same thing as other types, depending on how they're designed (fighters casting spells or mages being good explorers), none of the types overshadow or dominate the niche of any other type. No mage will ever combat as well as a fighter, no fighter will ever cast magic as well as a mage, and neither of them will be as good at exploring as the, well explorer type.

What I'm trying to get to is I'm a lazy GM. I want to reduce the work I have to expend at the gaming table before I ever sit down. This means that I've got to identify the mechanical exploits within a system and close those exploits beforehand. This saves me a lot of trouble later.

* Daniel_Ream makes several counterpoints here, which I disagreed with, but they're still arguments well worth considering.

 

[TristramEvans]

That's how I see it.

To be fair, Tristram, I used to spend a lot of time on a variety of GNU/Linux forums. You think the Nerd Rage can rise in this hobby? It's got nothing on the Linux Community.

The tribalism is everywhere people are.

Yeah, I've heard tell from an ex GF that the flamewars in the online knitting/crosstitch forums make the worst RPG forum fights look like Sunday school

 

[daniel_ream]

Yeah, I've heard tell from an ex GF that the flamewars in the online knitting/crosstitch forums make the worst RPG forum fights look like Sunday school

I find that not giving a sh*t about things that don't actually matter - like most hobbies and pastimes - ameliorates this nicely.

Amber Diceless does this badly

What I don't understand about your complaints on the system is that nearly all of them are addressed by Wujcik in the text of the game itself. While it's true that, say, Warfare does far too much heavy lifting in the system as written, players will do one of two things: realize this, and put very few points in Strength (which is a form of self-balancing) or not realize this, and put a lot of points in Strength instead of Warfare. In the latter case, Wujcik says explicitly to look at where the players spent their points and highlight those areas in your game, as spending points in the Auction is a strong proxy for what the players want to see emphasized in the campaign. Or, at least, you want to avoid players feeling like they invested much of their character creation budget in something that then never comes up in play.