On Balance, Power Gaming, and Fun

Picture It:  Calgary, 1984.

(With apologies to Sophia)

I was given the D&D Red Box for my 12th birthday in March.  In April, I got my first adventure, Palace of the Silver Princess, and the April 1984 edition of Dragon Magazine.

I'd not run a game yet. I had no idea how to run a game, or even to play, since I'd never been in a game and nobody around me had access to game books. I didn't know what a power game was, or min-maxing, or being a munchkin. I didn't know what a Monty Haul campaign was until I saw the term in the Dragon Magazine - and even then all I knew was 'it's a powerful character'.

Two years later, I was running games at school. There was a group who played AD&D, and I'd later dub it the illegal D&D group, because the characters had stats above 18, levels in the 100s, and access to Death Stars, laser weapons, and chromatic dragon familiars.  (Yeah, small, 5-headed dragon familiars of Tiamat). I didn't play with that group, I ran my own game.

Until some players asked to join in with my new campaign, using their characters. I, not knowing better, said 'sure', and let them join. And within a few short sessions I knew they'd plow through anything I threw at them.

Trial by fire, to be sure. But that was fine.

Instead, I made the game about choices, and roleplay, and consequence. Not a bad solution for being 14 years old, really. I was lacking in a number of fields ... I didn't know much about history, or cultures, or anything like that. But I did, on instinct, know that characters interacting was interesting, exploring the environment was interesting, and seeing how players responded to challenges which had to deal with moral decisions was interesting.  So what's what we did.

And the players had a blast.

So let's fast forward two decades or so.

Legend of the Five Rings came out.  A samurai game by John (the designer, not the assassin) Wick. I'd grown a lot as a game master - I'd learned how to handle horror by running Call of Cthulhu, diceless with Amber, and narrative games with the World of Darkness. Now, whatever your feelings about John Wick, his style of game mastering, and him as a person, there's two lessons he gave me which I very much appreciate. His thoughts on game theory and world design are pretty good.

One of which was this: the very idea of making a game that's 'balanced' is a fool's errand. By the time you've hammered it into any semblance of balance, you've also hammered out the texture and feel of the game engine as well. It becomes bland.

"All actions roll 3d6.  If you have a tag for your action, add a fourth die and take the best three. The tags have no other mechanical benefit. Your equipment gives no mechanical benefit. Your three abilities give you a +2 if they apply. All characters are built around this system."

Cool.  So my 'fully automatic rifle' and your 'combat knife' do the exact same thing.  My 'acrobatics' and your 'pick locks' do the exact same thing.  My 'fireball' and your 'slingshot' do the exact same thing. Congratulations, the decisions that the players make for how to make and progress their characters means next to nothing.

Don't get me wrong, it's a viable thing. I mean, Amber is diceless, and it's a fun game. But even Amber has more moving parts and allows for a lot more customisation than that. But as long as the players are having fun, carry on.

But... yeah, that kind of thing feels lifeless.

John and I have a different take on things concerning game design.

Build to the Setting.

There's a number of games where the mechanics allow for some pretty incredible (powerful) builds, but hold true to the setting. The world's complex, and the players have a large range of options for what to play.  Exalted is a good example, but so is Amber (diceless), Legend of the Five Rings (1e and 2e) and earlier editions of Shadowrun (3e-5e). They don't cater to game balance, they cater to 'this is the kind of stories told in this world', and the mechanics reflect it.

The players all begin at the same starting point.  The sheet is a blank canvas, and they all can build the exact same thing if they want.  Or, alternatively, they can dig into the options and build whatever fits into the setting.

Exalted: In order of power levels:

Solar Exalt.  Perfect Attack and Defence. Overwhelming Power.

Abyssal Exalted. Undead Solars. Not quite as strong.

Lunars.  Shape Shifters, Flexible.  Weaker than Solars.

Sidereals. Masters of Fate and Martial Arts. Squishy as Hell.

Terrestrials. Bonded to an Element. Work in Numbers. Squishier as Hell.

Godblood.  Humans with a Spark of the Divine. Even Squishier.

Human. ... yeah.

The players can spread out among the various types of Exalt, and the power levels will be vastly different. How they assign their attributes and skills will make them even more disparate.

And if everyone chooses the same type of Exalt?  Well, there's fave different castes - 'jobs', within each exaltation, and they have different degrees of power and ability. So how you choose among those and assign your points, you'll see a difference in capability and strength.

Which suits the game world just fine. That's just how the world works.  And this applies to other games.  Amber, the person with the highest attribute wins. Literally in most cases. You can round this out by how you build your artifacts, but it really is a matter of 'high attribute wins'. Fighting 2000 goblins?  Are you top-ranked in Warfare?  Do you have a sword?  You kill them - describe the method in which you soundly thrash them.

Legend of the Five Rings. Pick your Clan, your family, and your school of training, pick some advantages and disadvantages, assign a few points to skills or to round out your attributes. The difference between a Scorpion Clan warrior and a Crab Clan warrior are vast. Scorpion fight dirty.  Crab soak damage like a sponge.  In a 'fair fight', the Crab wins all day long. Get to the higher ranks, and things get scary.

Scorpion:  You missed me. It's now incredibly easy to hit you. I now take a penalty to attack so I can hit you harder. Oh, you need to take the same penalty to hit me.  You missed?  Guess what.

Crab:  You hit me.  I'm going to make a test to take no damage.  Oh, you took me to my last hit point?  I've got Void Points.  Each round, I'll spend one to keep going and hit you even though I'm supposed to be bleeding out.  No, I'm fine.  You? Not so much, eh?

Phoenix:  I have 6 points of Void.  I will now spend them all and hit you seven times as my action.  Oh, I need a skill?  Void point.  Yep, got the skill, thank you.

The capabilities of the schools are all over the place, but thematically they fit their respective Clans perfectly. And that's more important than 'balance'.

Even games like Dungeons and Dragons will have this problem. The fact a player is allowed to make a decision at all in character creation different from those of the other players is going to begin creating imbalance.  A player decides on an 18 Str and plays a Fighter, while someone else with 18 Str decides to play a Warlock. The Fighter decides to round out his Feats and Skills, while the Warlock picks Feats to synergize his weapons with his magic, and concentrates his Skills on perception and social interaction. The Fighter donates his money to charities, while the Warlock builds weapons and magic items to aid his abilities.

Mechanically? The Warlock is going to own.

So what?

The questions are:  Is it true to the setting and are the players having fun?

That's all that matters.

I often hear GMs say: 'I need to challenge the players'.

No you don't.

You need to entertain the players. Did the player, in fact, actually come to the table to be challenged? Or did they come to have fun? Because one doesn't necessarily mean the other.

I sit down at the table as a player, to explore the game world, meet NPCs, and have my character live their lives.  I'm not there to be challenged by the monsters that I'll face. That's not even on my radar. Because for me, deliberately going out into the wilderness and putting my life in danger just ... doesn't make sense.  If I'm going to go out into dangerous territory, I'll do everything I can to survive. So my choices for the character will reflect this within the context of their personality.

That's the roleplaying part, there.  Yeah.  The character's going to be a survivor -- but it'll be done in a way that makes sense... you can look at the character and go 'yeah, okay'.  If you're just looking at the crunchy numbers and how the character's going to stonewall anything coming down the pipe ... yeah, it'll be daunting. But it's also completely missing the point.

This idea of 'well, I don't want power gamers at my table', or 'don't min-max', or 'how do I challenge this character' seems less about the group having fun, and more a power play.  It's a fight for control.  It's an ego thing.  The game master wants to be in control of the situation and dictate the terms of the game. The PCs fight on the GM's terms, are challenged by the GM's terms, and progress by the GM's terms.

And if a player doesn't go along with it 'they're a problem'.  And I've seen GMs who are more than willing to oust a player, or force them to change characters, or nerf the character, even if the rest of the group were perfectly fine with the player and the character. Because it was never about the group's fun, even if the GM said it was - it was about the GM wanting control.  (And I've seen some control-freak GMs, I tell you. Oh I've got stories.)

My job is to let the players have fun.  To let them play who and what they want to play within the context of the setting.  To explore the world how they want to, and to make the game interesting. It isn't about 'challenging' the players unless they want to be - in which case they'll go out and look for it.  It isn't about having the characters similar in capabilities - that's never going to happen in a way that keeps the game interesting. As long as the players roleplay, and they have fun, I'm doing my job. There will always be new NPCs to meet, new locations to visit, and new choices to make.

"Well, I want to have fun, too."  Of course you do. That's to be expected.  So, what is your idea of fun?  Is it letting the players explore?  Is it for putting challenging fights in front of them and putting them through the grinder to come out the other side worn down but victorious? Is it for introducing NPCs and having the players roleplay?  Some combination of these things?

Or is it giving the players what they want, and watching them enjoy the hell out of themselves in the process?  Because ... that's what I look for. It can include all of the above.  Or none of the above.  Because the method doesn't matter to me, it's the outcome that matters.

And if the players aren't having fun ... is it really because of the power gamer, or is it because of how the GM is reacting to the power gamer?  Is the power gamer a good roleplayer?  Does he share the spotlight with the other players and help them out? Are they enjoying themselves?  If so, and you still think there's a problem -- it isn't the player, it's the guy behind the screen who's the real problem.

Because if the group's having fun, there shouldn't be a problem. And if a player is complaining about having nothing to do it's still the GM's problem, because the GM should be able to keep everyone engaged regardless of the power disparity. If you up the threat level time and again, you're focusing on the power gamer - and not on the rest of the group. You're making the game about him.

I've played characters across the board.  GM had us roll 3d6 down the line, placed in order.  Str 3, Con 5, Wis 18.  I made a human cleric.  She was the weakest thing in the world, the weakest character I'd ever played.  The GM offered to let me reroll the 3 and 5, and I said 'no'.  She was a blast ... and the only survivor of the first adventure.  I still pull her out for different campaigns.

And I've played a Dex 20, Str 16 Warblade. AC 40+ by 8th level.  Dropped 150+ damage in the first round of combat. Could take down almost any boss monster by the second round.

The players were cool with this, we coordinated to put me in the best spot and to ensure the other characters had proper cover to deal with side-threats or to add onto the damage I dished out.

The GM ramped up the encounters. Bigger and bigger monsters.  This made things worse, not better, because we got XP faster, which made us stronger.  Which meant having to ramp things up more.

I sat down with him.  "Quantity.  More threats. Force us to divide our attention."  It worked. I'd have to focus on two or three big bads, there were a bunch of medium and small bads to harass the others, and we had to coordinate and think through how we wanted to get through the combats.  We didn't have a lot of fights, because our table doesn't focus on combat - but the fights were good because the GM didn't focus on me, it was about the group.

It shouldn't be what the player builds, it should be how the player plays. It should always be about the group having fun. And as long as the characters fit the setting, as long as the mechanics support the setting, and as long as the players are enjoying themselves, it should be all good.