Balancing wizards and warriors

[Pyrephox]

@seraphim73 said in Balancing wizards and warriors:

@arkandel I play character types that I like, not power sets that I like (usually). I often play troopers or pilots in Star Wars games, I played Children of the Light on WoT games, and I play Punisher, Arsenal, etc on superhero games. I do it because I like being sort of "the default," something that helps reinforce the setting. Also, I like having to think of a creative solution rather than just throwing a big fireball. I also enjoy being set up to be JUST THAT AWESOME //despite// not having powers. When the Clone Trooper can drop the Dark Jedi Acolyte because the Clone Trooper is just that badass (and that high level), it's a lot more awesome than when the Jedi can drop the Dark Jedi Acolyte. When Frank Castle figures out a way to take down Abomination, it's a lot more impressive than Hulk doing it.

@greenflashlight said in Balancing wizards and warriors:

"It's not harming a human! It's just throwing a boulder! GRAVITY is hurting the human!"

This one is even easier: "Are you telling me that your character is stupid enough to think that dropping a boulder on that human with the One Power (magic) isn't going to hurt them? Because your character is actually magically bound to not hurt humans with the One Power."

The thing about this is that while that is absolutely a conversation people have at tabletop tables, it tends to be one that doesn't always happen in a MU*. Different GMs have different levels of confidence, and if you're using player GMs, the person loopholing might be their friend, or their main connection for RP for their character, or the GM may genuinely not see anything wrong with 'gaming' the system like that.

And every time a GM says, "Okay, I'll allow it," then that player is emboldened to push again, and other players who saw that work start pushing for their own clever workarounds, and it can become a rancorous process where people are accusing other people of favortism, or cheating, etc.

My preference tends to be to have system defined boundaries, state them clearly, and apply them as consistently as possible. It builds a sense of confidence in people that they understand the rules, and what they can and cannot do, rather than encouraging them always to see what THIS GM will tolerate.

[Misadventure]

@insomniac7809 said in Balancing wizards and warriors:
When the power levels are all narrative ... "roll Forceful to Overcome Obstacle" or whatever, everyone has the same... I dunno... "meta-narrative(?)" involvement in the outcome, even if in the narrative Thor is slugging it out with the whole CGI army while Natasha is running the goober to the skybeam to shut it down or whatever.

These (FATE Accelerated?) ideas actually sounds pretty good.

I do think one reason magical powers and such get player attention is that they let you imagine more fantastical thoughts, feelings and drives for your PC, and describe more fantastical events, while having all the capacities of most other character types. It has a higher sense of significance.

[Seraphim73]

@pyrephox I agree. I think it's incumbent on Head Staff to step in when something like that happens and then make a clear ruling.

But yes, if you're creating your own system, you can try to avoid those spirit-of-the-rules issues.

[Carma]

This post is deleted!

[Misadventure]

@carma You could also say "play an Aes Sedai like they are shown in the book, or play something else".

The idea of basing something on an IP usually is to emulate and expand on the stories and feel as presented. Or you specifically call out a "what if X was different" as part o the setup.

"What if the heroes were rules lawyering embodiments of choas"

Like if I wanted to do Force users based less on whats in the Star Wars cannon and more about emotional stability, self control, and self image I'd want to be clear it was going to be Star Wars like, but with different emphasis on what guides a Force Users behavior.

[Derp]

@misadventure

Wait, is that not how the Jedi work?

[mietze]

I think one of the important things to be very intentional about is what you, as staff/gamerunner(s) are hoping to get out of "balancing".

Are you wanting to balance things so that you have minimal intervention responsibilities (you want to expect that players will largely create their own fun without much staff supported and enforced structure)?

Are you wanting have a more well rounded set of characters (and so need to make less flashy "types" appealing to play so that you don't have an all Aes Sedai and Their Warders game?

It's hard to know how to balance things when one doesn't know the real honest intent behind it. There's no right or wrong answer to that, but I think figuring that out and then structuring from there is more likely to be successful.

[Jennkryst]

@misadventure Not sure if this is pro- or anti-Grey Jedi, but I'mma just take a second to Soapbox about how dumb they are as a concept, the writer who introduced them is dumb, and the film canonization of the Light Side is one of the more unforgiving sins of episode 7.

***=The MOST UNFORGIVABLE SIN***

click to show

... is, of course, Snoke not being Darth Darth Binks.

...

Back on topic... wait, what is the topic? It says Balancing, but WoT keeps getting brought up about how they are NOT balanced. Which... fair. Do you want to ignore theme and balance them? Do you want to adhere to theme and ignore balance? Are you prepared to deal with the complaints of the people who think you chose poorly?

[Ominous]

@carma said in Balancing wizards and warriors:

Here's an idea for the Aes Sedai - make their magic work off intent. So if they're not doing something to directly harm someone, but in the mind of the caster, the intended outcome is to eventually cause harm to someone, it backfires and harms the caster instead.

Yeah, that's one I forgot.

Magic Has Standards of Conduct method - Magic is tied to the spiritual realm and using it requires you to abide by certain rules, beliefs, what have you. For example, using magic to kill is wrong, and, if you do it, you get to do it once, then you lose your magic. Or maybe now you can only use dark magic which can only do harmful destructive things. Even if you try to do good with dark magic, it warps and perverts your intention to still cause harm