Socialist Gaming

So this is the big one. This is the problem I noticed that made me realize I had a lot to say about gaming, the insidious, infectious school of thought I hate so much that I coined a term for it. Today's topic is balance, armchair game developers, and socialist gaming. Let me get this out of the way: ain't nothing wrong with socialism as a political concept. At least, I'm not saying there is. Speaking strictly about gaming, though: Socialism is bad, and Capitalism is good.

This one might be will be a long one, folks. You were warned in advance.

Socialism is when there's democratic control over the means of production. Basically, the government controls economic policies. In capitalism, private companies control the means of production. I am super glossing over this and if you want actual information on economic policies I really have to suggest finding a blog on economic policy. This one's on gaming. Socialist gaming might not even be an apt name for the concept I'm about to explain to you, but in my defense? I was a straight C student.

Back to gaming. Balance absolutely can be a problem in your game and it's (one of) your job(s) as a GM to quell problems and make sure everyone's having a good time. Nobody likes being outshined by someone else all of the time. In extreme cases, people not having fun will either make their own fun by disrupting the game, or get frustrated enough that they want to quit. The thing is, though, a poorly performing character can be exactly as disruptive as an overpowered one. An OP character outshines the whole group, but a bad one IS outshone BY the whole group. It's the same problem in reverse.

There are some easy ways to lower the chance of accidental poor balance, though. The first is to remove random variables from character generation. These are a holdover from first edition Dungeons and Dragons, and many, many games remove them entirely. This is because, obviously, there can be a giant gap between someone who rolled well and someone who rolled poorly. Rolling poorly can even destroy a concept, most notably with someone trying to play a tough, tanky character who then rolls poorly on their hit points. Using a point based stat system and 'average' HP rules(full HP on level 1, then 1/2 of the die value every level) can really go a long way to ensuring your PCs don't suffer from bad luck, and that YOU don't suffer from their good luck. As for stats, I prefer 84 points assigned in a 1:1 ratio. I hate the D20 scaling point cost system with a fiery passion, but that's a discussion for another day. In fact, I already covered it, kind of, when I talked about MAD and SAD classes.

You might have to disallow certain feats, classes, archtypes or spells at some point. Depending on the game you're playing (Looking at you, 3.X D&D) it may even be unavoidable. A lot of people think this is a GM's main job, to make sure balance hits some sort of level or "line". Some people even revel in doing this, feeling like the game is something the GM crafts just like a PC crafts their character. You know how I feel about GMs acting like the Lord of Games, but I also need to stress how dangerous it can be to flat-out disallow something in your game or alter the rules to 'balance' something. It should be seen as a last resort, something you do when there's no other way to balance something.

What I'm getting at is that game balance is the Means of Production. The difference between political socialism and gaming socialism is simple, though: You are a single, biased person. It is impossible for you to make an objective decision. It is impossible for you to define where your 'line' of good balance lies. Even if you don't think so, your decisions will be influenced by your opinions of the player in question. Where Capitalist gaming is everyone building the best character they can, Socialist gaming is the GM saying "Build the best character you can, so long as it's not better than I think it should be."

I don't think I should have to tell you why this is a bad thing. Obviously it's arrogant, but it's also doomed to failure and creates unfairness in every area of your game. That's why the rules are THERE: to create fairness. Yes, that means between you and the players too. Altering the rules by inventing new ones you think will balance the game 'better' will not do so. Coming up with new rules on the fly, in the middle of a campaign or solely to balance a single PC is especially heinous. Disallowing things based on subjective reasoning or circumstances WILL end in the players feeling like they don't have control over how they build their character, because they don't. They'll feel like you're playing favorites, because you are. I've seen a GM pick on his brother for trading out 'useless' class abilities using Unearthed Arcana, then turn around  and suggest his wife trade out all of her less useful class abilities using Unearthed Arcana. It was blatant and insulting to everyone involved, including his wife.

That's a pretty extreme example and deliberate on his part, but he did ALMOST do something right. What you need to do is let everyone build the best character they possibly can, then make sure everyone is around the same level, preferably by bringing people up instead of cutting people down. Preferably you do this via teaching them and helping them make changes to their character. Giving someone an artificial advantage isn't helping them build a better character and ensures this kind of thing will happen in the future.

This kind of thinking really can be a hard thing to avoid, but it's easier if you build a few habits. First, know the game you're running and identify problems before anyone's had a chance to build a character. If it's a game with a lot of source like D&D 3.X, put together a book list the PCs can choose from to build their character. Never make "all things considered" decisions about someone's character or allow something for one character but not another. Be fair, and make sure your decisions affect everybody. If you want to use alternate rules, make sure EVERYONE agrees, and strongly consider sticking to published alternate rules to avoid unintended balance issues. Try to avoid meddling in a game's system to 'fix' it. You're not a game developer, and they've done more testing than you. Unless you ARE a game developer, in which case I apologize but I'm not backing down.

Sometimes a spell effect, feat or ability might be okay for most people, but feel overpowered when someone else is using it. The classic example of this is spells like haste or expeditious retreat when applied to a monk. In these cases, the first thing you need to do is consider if it's really that bad or not. Try to remove your fear of large numbers and ask yourself what it really means for them to have this 'overpowered' ability. An incredibly high skill check might be disastrous when applied to stealth, but in many other skills it's not a big deal. In the case of move speed, it might be much higher than someone else's speed...but even the monk with a 100 speed still has to take an action to get anywhere. Use your 'bottom line' skills I taught you in a previous blog.

Also keep in mind that a character might be "OP" because they've built their whole character toward one thing. That's their prerogative to do so. Before you get upset at the insane capability they've built themselves, look for a flaw they've left in their character somewhere. Most of the time, there will be one. The man with the insane stealth skill did have to take Stealthy and/or Skill Focus(Skill Focus! What a dork, right?!) and a special race like goblin to get there. Start to get nervous when the player has achieved something insane while still having decent or even great capabilities everywhere else. I have also seen a wealth of characters designed to be OP at a single really stupid or silly capability, like a Two Weapon Fighting character able to use daggers or tekko-kagi, a "superman" cosplayer in Shadowrun with 30 dice in jumping, or a troll so big they use a boat anchor as a weapon. If you see one of these...strongly consider letting the player have their fun. It's probably not as bad as it seems.

A player who feels like they've been treated fairly is a happy player. A player who's allowed to build a cool character without someone leaning over their shoulder like a schoolteacher feels accomplished. I'm not saying you'll never have to make a balance call, though. Games with a wealth of source often have balance issues or 'power creep' because developers can't or won't consider everything when designing material. I'm going to leave you with two things to remember.

The first is that balance truly matters the most when characters are compared to each other. If every PC is equally broken (whether they're OP or just the normal kind of broken) then there might be no problem. Just accept it and do your best to challenge them. Only in rare circumstances will it become difficult, such as when everyone's very powerful in extremely different or strange ways.

The second is that you need to see your balancing decisions not as an artful rapier, but as a bomb. Huge, dangerous, powerful, but used only when absolutely necessary, because it can cause far more damage than good.