Balance Questions

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Sun Aug 09, 2009 10:57 pm

Is there any use/balance in having a system where you have four types of characters that beat each other rock-paper-scissors style, where you have the opposing elements tie? For example:

Sword > dagger > shield > wand > sword
Sword = shield and dagger = wand, where = means 50/50

Also, I am aware that point-buy advancement has the advantage of versatility at the cost of min/maxing, while a level system has the advantage of breadth (no overspecialization) at the cost of customization. Would it be feasible/balanced to have a character work off of two different schemes? By this, I mean your character is level-based for all things combat oriented and point-based for all things out of combat.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sun Aug 09, 2009 11:05 pm

Only if you are prepared to actually enforce equal ratios of opponent types.

This is the downfall of all RPS style schemes in RPG mechanics.

As for the second question. Remember skill ranks?

Manxome · Post by **Manxome** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:36 am

Contrary to Frank's onetime thesis, I'm pretty sure that there are no "magic numbers" for RPS systems. Other than the fact that if you want an element to tie with itself, then you can't have perfect symmetry with an even number of elements unless you also allow each to tie with something else, too (not that symmetry is mandatory for balance).

The more types you have, the less likely that any specific random matchup will occur, and thus some systems change their statistical properties as you add more. For example, if each element only beats 1 other element, then the more elements you have, the less likely they are to matter in any random fight. Which is why letting the number of materials for overcoming DR grow without limit is probably a bad idea, for example. But that's a smooth slider; just adjust to taste.

Thymos · Post by **Thymos** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:22 pm

The problem with RPS is that it's really random and has very little tactical measure to it.

Take werewolves, these could be a RPS monster where if you have silver you beat them, but they beat normal, which beats you if you only have silver.

That's a stupid way of explaining it. The real story with this potential werewolf is that he's a trick monster you need silver to beat. The rest of the equation isn't really needed.

The problem is that trick monsters are very hard to balance because if you make it easy for the prepared group then the not-prepared group will have a hard time but will probably win, making preparing dumb. If you making it hard but possible for the prepared group this means it's an autokill for the not-prepared group, which is also dumb.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:49 am

Yeah, with things like the werewolf example, you just carry both normal and silver. You use silver when fighting a werewolf and normal for everything else.

So, basically, you just run around with rock and paper, and switch between the two for an action when needed. It's only quasi-RPS at best.

Starmaker · Post by **Starmaker** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:41 pm

Thymos wrote:If you making it hard but possible for the prepared group this means it's an autokill for the not-prepared group, which is also dumb.

The non-prepared group rolls bear lore, succeeds, screams "jesus christ it's a lion werewolf get in the car" and runs away to get prepared and fight another day. Ideally.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 4:51 pm

I was thinking more along the lines of each of the RPS elements being entire classes (sword-wielder, wand-user, etc).

As for skill ranks in d20, it was a level-based system using point-buy dressing.