Rifleman Archive

For every significant advantage, there is an equally significant disadvantage. This is the essence of balance. The problems that occur when balancing RPG classes primarily stem from individual interpretations of significance. What one person feels is is huge advantage is often seen by others to be trivial, or even a disadvantage (and vise versa). From these value judgements are conflicts born. The only equitable solution to these conflicts is to determine a standard relative worth.

How does one determine the relative worth of a skill set?

-Results:

What is the result of using this skill? How much of an impact does the use of this skill have on the environment? How important is this result?

-Frequency:

How common or rare is the circumstance that allows this result to be realized? How difficult is it to use this skill successfully?

-Foils:

What coutermeasures are there for this skill? How common are these foils? What is the relative worth of these foils, do they only apply to this skill or do they have other uses?

-Cost (or pain in the a** factor):

Is the skill infinitely reusable once obtained or does one need to run a 10 day quest before each use? What sort of resources does this skill's use consume? How difficult are these resources to obtain?

Once broken down into Results, Frequency, Foils, and Cost it is easier to pinpoint in what way a skill is advantageous or disadvantageous in it's own right. This is the basic relative worth of the skill. This will not be a hard number, it will be a consensus. Balance is an art, not a science, and is therefore ultimately subject to the eye of the beholder. Breaking it up allows one to more accurately illustrate their point of view which isessential if you wish others to see your point of view.

The next thing to look at is Synergy. Does the class in posession of this skill have complementary abilities that increase the relative value of this skill? A skill that caused instantaneous death to a target when used from behind said targetwould beof low relative worth on a class that had no means to get behind a target. A class that had many usefulways to get behind a target would inflate the relative worth of the same skill.

Next, look at the environment. Is the relative worth of all the advantages rougly equal to the relative worth of the disadvantages? If not, are other elements in the environment balanced similarly? If a class has one significantadvantage and ten equally significant disadvantages it is balanced if every other class is in the same situation. It might not be fun, but it is balanced.

-------------------Rebalance------------------------------

Let's say that we determine that a class is not balanced. What do we do about it? Before I attempt to answer this question I refer you to this webpage:

http://www.memorableplaces.com/mudwimping.html

Lessening the effectiveness of a class or group of classes is not the answer. If you disagree I refer you to the link. If you still can't see it I can't help you. I see the symptoms described in the above already manifesting themselves. People factionalizing, falling into ranks to fend off the storm and to heck with everyone else. This is bad and a direct result of that line of thinking.

The truth is that there is no one right answer (though there is at least one wrong answer as described above). This is an art, what works in one situation may not work in another. My best advice is to enhance the weak points of an underpowered class, and to develop foils to an overpowered class. These enhancements and foils could take the form of new abilities, equipment, monsters, or classes to name a few. The key isto add functionality, not create functionality through the diminishing of others' abilities. If your car is of low worth, you don't key everyone elses car and then claim yours ismore valuable now. You haven't succeeded in raising the value of your car, you've just succeeded in beinga b*****d.

I hope people will think about what I have writen (and what Tenarius has writen in the link) and make better decisions because of it.