Multi-Species Parties & Game Balance

[soltakss]

Personally, I cannot see the advantages of balancing races.

 

However, if you want to balance races, then you need an idea of what is "normal" and what is "disadvantaged". Once you set that idea, then balancing can be done by various means.

[Darkholme]

Judging from your posts and point of view, why do you want to run BRP or Legend? Why not go with one of the pre-balanced RPGs? They would appear to be more your style.

Sometimes, I do go with pre-balanced RPGs. I still enjoy playing "Pathfinder", for instance. It's a matter of genre. If I want high-powered fantasy I go with Pathfinder (but me running Pathfinder involves 120 pages of houserules and new/converted options - Pathfinder has a lot of issues, but it has excellent adventures and settings, and I've yet to find another RPG that outdoes it in high-powered fantasy). It does what I want better than the other options I've seen/read/tried, even if it doesn't do it 100% to my satisfaction.

 

I go for d100 when I am looking for a decent system to run historical settings, or more gritty, sword & sorcery feeling games. I like the more human power-scale instead of the ever growing scales of many other fantasy games. I would indeed like it better if it was more pre-balanced between players, but coming up with houserules for the parts of a system that don't manage to do what I want has never been a problem for me in the past though. In short, there are parts of the system I don't care for, sure; but for the games I would use it for, I have yet to find a system I like better, and it does have many aspects that I do like. Like with Pathfinder, it does what I want better than the other options I've seen/read/tried, even if it doesn't do it 100% to my satisfaction. Unlike with Pathfinder, it doesn't have nearly so much stuff that I would feel a need to houserule. I like that it's classless. I like its power scale. I like that weapons are a serious threat, even later in the game. I like that there aren't so many fiddly bits and that it's not so much an exception-based ruleset.

 

And when I want pulpy Sci-Fi (I don't tend to run/play the highly political sci-fi games some people play), I use Edge of the Empire with custom races (built using a racial PB system I designed for it) and a bunch of custom weapons, armor, and vehicles, to allow me to use it for non-star-wars.

 

I tried a bunch of Unisystem stuff, and I was dissatisfied with so much of it that it felt like I needed to rewrite the entire game if I was going to run it, so I don't try to play it anymore (though I do like its magic system in Buffy/Ghosts of Albion), and I like the idea of NPCs having simplified statblocks to save the GM prep-time. I tried Rolemaster, and it's not for me, even if it's critical hit tables can be highly entertaining. I have many problems with the system and it would take far too much work to fix them all. I tried D&D 2e and 4e, and again - I would require so many houserules that the result would be scarcely recognizable, even if it was compatible with the adventures. World of Darkness doesn't do the kinds of Urban Fantasy I want to play very well, it just does its own thing. I liked shadowrun, but I'm not sure I could use it for anything besides shadowrun. I didn't enjoy FATE - I find meta-mechanics and diret narrative control mechanics to be distracting, and building a whole game out of them, well, I dunno, not really my thing. Mutants and Masterminds seemed pretty neat when I was reading it and building my character, but I find it tedious in gameplay.

 

In short, I've tried a bunch of systems, and I have yet to find one that does better for me the things d100 does for me (I also have a hard time finding any systems I like enough that I don't feel a need for any houserules or custom content). It's quite possible that eventually my 'd100 games' will be a significant departure from traditional d100 games, as I pile on houserules (and if/when that happens, I'm okay with that so long as it works for me). It's also possible that I will eventually find another system I like better. That has yet to happen, however. It's possible I'll replace Pathfinder and EotE with systems that are closer to my gaming needs in the future too, but that has also yet to happen. I've considered making a/some complete rulebook(s) for my own gaming, but that is a lot of work, but maybe some day I will. In the meantime; I like houserules better than just putting up with the things I don't care for or not gaming at all.

[Chaot]

If poeple are being ineffective, it's more of a player problem than a character one. 

 

 

If you balance them then nobody gets to be awesome. That's the D&D pitfall. Everything is supposedly balanced so no one and nothing actually stands out. Everyone had the same opportunities, they just chose differently. 

 

Juding from your posts and point of view, why do you want to run BRP or Legend? Why not go with one of the pre-balanced RPGs? They would appear to be more your style.

 

What?  I'm sure we can all agree that some form of platonic game balance is an illusive goal that wouldn't even really pay off in the end if it was achieved.  That's not what's going on here.  Darkholme has some players who would balk at the range of abilities that a PC has through course of play.  He's figuring on a way to adjust the mechanics so that they are more in line with his preference.

 

These aren't dramatic adjustments.  They're no place near 'you should just go play D&D' level adjustments.

 

Your point about player input mattering more than the numbers on their sheet is valid, and I agree with it.  I think that a lot of 'balance' issues are really about game time focus and narrative/gamist structure rather than mechanical structure of the PCs.  Roleplaying is a social monster and it's tough to get all the parts moving correctly fluidly so that everyone is happy.

 

I also think that people have a general sense of fairness and an interest to protect their own 'niche' but are also rather reasonable.  If they are shown that the discrepencies between monster stat ranges are addressed in some little way they'll likely be fine with it.  They just want to know that their interest has been acknowledged.

 

I'm wondering if a simple tally system could be used to track this.  Maybe two numbers by the stat block.  The first one would be how far the creature's attributes varies from average human range and the second one tallying special abilities.  These numbers could be compared at character creation and easily compensated for.  It's not exacting balance, it's a tip of the hat in the direction of balance.

 

For example (none of these numbers are real, making them up here)

 

let's say our giants averages are 

str 25

con 20

siz 30

dex 10

int 8

pow 13

cha 10

 

and our halfling has

str 8

con 15

siz 8

dex 20

int 13

pow 13

cha 13

 

let's say human stat average is 13.

12, 7, 17, -3, -5, 0, -3: +25

-5, 2, -5, 7, 0, 0, 0: -1

 

Looking at the stats, there is a 26 point difference between the two characters.  Multiply that by 5 and you get 130.  Bang, Halfling gets an extra 130 skill points.  No fuss.

 

Same sort of thing can be done with special abilities for the second tally.  Rate special abilities on a 3 point scale, weak, average, strong.  Tally them up and either give skill points or special abilities to compensate.

 

It boils down to this.  If I'm running a game I want a game full of heroes and interesting characters.  I want to give my players tools for their toolbox so that they can make interesting things.  If this makes players happy, more power to them.

 

 

 

 

Charles Green published a little system in Gods of Law and later updated it in Dragon Lines that changed the way I run NPCs.  His minion rules (and to an extent his genre guidelines) made me realize that I was over prepping and also maybe focusing on the wrong thing during game prep.

 

My current stat block for NPCS generally look like this

 

Skill %, Skill %, Skill %, Dex, Attack/Damage, Armor/Hitpoints, [MP, Spell]

 

Anything else I can fill in during play as I need it.

[Darkholme]

Yeah, that's basically it Chaot. Well put. I think I would want to crunch some numbers to see if I could more accurately estimate what the value of a stat on skills is (based on the number of skills it adds to, or something) but that's basically what I had in mind, yes.

 

I like that condensed statblock too. Those are always helpful.

[Atgxtg]

Charot,

 

I don't think balancing off stat points with skills actually works. For one thing, you end up with all the giants being inept and all the hobbits being masterful. Secondly, I think a very high skill discrepancy causes more balance problems for the campaign. It becomes a lot more difficult to work out the stats for opponents when one PC has 25% skill, another 50%, and another 75%. Instead of the skill scores offsetting a difference is stats, it just adds another set of discrepancies to worry about. Actually multiple sets, since there are a lot more skills than attributes. 

 

 

I ran (the old) Superworld RPG, which a mostly a point built system, and even though the PCs were "balanced" on paper, they were no where near balanced in play, and I had to be very careful about which opponents to use against a particular hero.  

 

I suppose the GM could toss out random stat generation, give everyone 10s for attributes, and a pool of points to buy up their stats and skills using the Powers rules. If someone wants to be a giant or hobbit, it's up to them to buy (or sell off) their stats until they are within the acceptable range for that particulate race. 

[Darkholme]

Charot,

 

I don't think balancing off stat points with skills actually works. For one thing, you end up with all the giants being inept and all the hobbits being masterful. Secondly, I think a very high skill discrepancy causes more balance problems for the campaign. It becomes a lot more difficult to work out the stats for opponents when one PC has 25% skill, another 50%, and another 75%. Instead of the skill scores offsetting a difference is stats, it just adds another set of discrepancies to worry about. Actually multiple sets, since there are a lot more skills than attributes. 

 

 

I ran (the old) Superworld RPG, which a mostly a point built system, and even though the PCs were "balanced" on paper, they were no where near balanced in play, and I had to be very careful about which opponents to use against a particular hero.  

 

I suppose the GM could toss out random stat generation, give everyone 10s for attributes, and a pool of points to buy up their stats and skills using the Powers rules. If someone wants to be a giant or hobbit, it's up to them to buy (or sell off) their stats until they are within the acceptable range for that particulate race. 

Hmm.

 

I would think (if counterbalancing with extra skills) the amount of extra skills you would get would correlate to the amount of skills granted by the attributes. So if there are 10 Dex/Agi Skills, then you would get something like 10 skillpoints for every +1 in dex (though I would suggest reducing it since you get to put them in whatever skills you want, including dumping them all into a single desirable skill - to perhaps 50% to 75% of the number of skills. The "Tricky part" would be determining the weights of the things besides skills. Stuff like Damage Bonus, HP, and the various special abilities like flight and darkvision.

 

Ah, yeah, I've already tossed out random stat generation, and in the past have gone with the 80 point buy, but I could see myself using OQ2 style point buy in the future.

[Chaot]

Yeah, that's basically it Chaot. Well put. I think I would want to crunch some numbers to see if I could more accurately estimate what the value of a stat on skills is (based on the number of skills it adds to, or something) but that's basically what I had in mind, yes.

 

Oh yeah, numbers totally need to be looked at.

 

 

 

Not all the Hobbits, good Atgxtg.  The way I've outlined it, this whole thing only kicks in for PCs, and even then only when there's a large disparity between creatures played.  The points distributed are different if the 'most powerful' creature is an elf or if it's a giant.

 

As far as how it affects the discrepancy of skill levels in the group, it seems like a fair trade off to me.  One PC has a special ability of higher stats and the other has increased skill level.  I've run for PCs with a wide range of skill before and I find it easier to let the PCs do the work.  The PCs should know their relative effectiveness in the party, even if it's just a vague 'That PC likes to mix it up in combat more than me and is a bit of a bruiser.  I'll run support."  Regardless, when I have an encounter ready it will have a range of toughness.  I describe the opponents, giving hints or flat out telling the PCs who's tough and who's weak, and the PCs design their strategy from there.

 

When the question of 'why should I play a halfling when he gets to play a giant?' arises, the answer is generally 'because you want to play a halfling.'  All that this system does is recognize that there is as difference of power level between a halfling and a giant and gives the halfling a few extra skill points in compensation.  This isn't a universal equality mechanic, it's a It's also a way for the player to hear that they matter, and it would be a way for me to get them to shut up and let me start the game!

 

It also assumes some things about play.  A lot of people prefer BRP when the skill levels are low.  Some versions of the game cap skill levels at 100%.  I'm of the tradition of high skill levels for beginning characters so the extra skill points are a nice addition in my game that doesn't swing the power level too far.  For games where this is a bigger difference, or where the GM doesn't like the idea of extra skill points, you could easily substitute a special ability or special item.  Whatever meshes with your gameplay.

 

Remember, my thought was that you don't bother balancing all of the creatures, but give them a generic rating.  You only need to give some points if it's necessary, like the extreme giant and halfling issue.  I think the bottom line is, both sides of this discussion are correct.  BRP creatures don't need to be 'balanced' for play and BRP creatures could be more 'balanced' for play.  I don't see the question as, "should I or should I not?", but rather, "if I were going to, how would I go about it?".

[Darkholme]

I think the bottom line is, both sides of this discussion are correct.  BRP creatures don't need to be 'balanced' for play and BRP creatures could be more 'balanced' for play.  I don't see the question as, "should I or should I not?", but rather, "if I were going to, how would I go about it?

I think that's pretty much the case with all rules changes, whether it be houserules for your home game, or alternate rules published in a supplement book.

 

The rules in the existing book are already functional, in that you can run a game with them. That doesn't mean that all of the results will be to your tastes, or that some of the consequences of the rules in the existing book won't have consequences you find troublesome - whether it be a large power disparity between player characters you don't want (such as this bit here for races, or OpenQuest's style of character creation), or something you consider to be too much fiddly tracking which you don't want (such as BRP/Stormbringer style hit points and major wounds as a simplification from hit locations). So if you're already satisfied with the existing rule, you won't want to use an alternate rule designed to have different implications, and indeed such an alternate rule isn't designed for you, it's designed for the guy who doesn't like the consequences of the existing rule or doesn't want them for his next game.

[seneschal]

OK, we've talked about all kinds of species, but I just gotta see a write-up of one of these:

 

http://www.starshipmodeler.co/gallery15/ap_022414_rapp.html

[BMonroe]

"Game balance is for pussies" -- Greg Stafford, c. 2004

[Mankcam]

I was just waiting for that quote to reappear again heh heh

[TRose]

My two cents.

 First I I should say I run Elves and other based on Stats from RQIII am not familiar with Racial stats in other settings.

 So Human tend to be the best race outside some of the very rare races.

 And I have allowed my players to play any sentient race they want but I warn them that they are in an ancient society , not a modern Politically Correct World. So strange and unusual races are met with distrust and you will often take a hit on your social skills. So you can play a Morocanth if you want to, but don't be surprised if a child goes missing the local villagers   accused you of eating it.

 Also weapons, armor and other equipment is designed for human use for the most part. So although a Dark troll might not have problems with a human made mace, finding a breastplate that fits is going to be hard, and finding a Smith that wont try to gouge the funny looking wealthy tourist almost impossible.

[Moonowl67]

The point-buy system suggested in Classic Fantasy makes elves very expensive on character-point expenditure, which results in more-than-usual sub-par stats.  I've balanced this with my own alternative experience point system that allows for a more-even progression where players can opt to increase stats-over skills or some combination there-of.  It seems to work pretty well; the players are happy with it, and nobody has gotten crazy stats (the regular players are now qualifying as 'advanced').

 

The only balance issues I've found in BRP have had to do with Magic World sorcery spells, and the Deep Magic system presented in Advanced Sorcery.  Hopefully, players choose races more for the character-concept than to min-max stats, but I echo the sentiment that BRP in general is not for the game-balance obsessed.  The best cure for that, I've found, is creativity at the table; play to the PC's strengths, and try to be conscious of giving each player a meaningful turn.

[Chaot]

I've balanced this with my own alternative experience point system that allows for a more-even progression where players can opt to increase stats-over skills or some combination there-of.  It seems to work pretty well; the players are happy with it, and nobody has gotten crazy stats (the regular players are now qualifying as 'advanced').

 

I do something similar, experience wise.  I give a certain amount of increases every session.  They PCs can increase any skill that they used, whether it was a success or failure.  I also don't have them roll, it's just a straight increase.

 

However, if they wish, they can bank the points for stat increases.  I use a variant of the Wish system from D&D.  If the stat is 8, the PC need the stat number +1 (or 9 banked checks) to get an increase.  

[Chaot]

I have a strong desire to do a gonzo kitchen sink game with a bunch of different critters for PCs.  It looks like New Years Eve is also going to be a game party at the Chaot household.  While there's a range of things on the table (Mice & Mystics, Forbidden Island, Arkham Horror, Small Armies, FASERIP, Kill Doctor Lucky) I may take some time to roll up fantasy characters.

 

If it happens, I'll likely try some of the ideas in this thread.  Should it occur I shall report back.

[seneschal]

If you do, the Call of Cthulhu Creature Generator can make that task much easier:

 

http://wstryder.org/coccg/

 

And you can select competence level for greater balance if desired.