Game Balance

This essay requires a bit of an introduction. As I have mentioned elsewhere, I am a rather vocal member of the Earthdawn Mailing list, and a discussion arose (I forget what actually brought it up) about game balance, and how some of the rules in Earthdawn aren't balanced. The discussion followed several different threads, and I was eventually moved to write this, which is less about game balance than it is about some of my theories on game design (which includes game balance).

I have annotated this essay to make certain things clearer. They are emphasized or in brackets as necessary.

Here's my take on the whole balance of the rules issue. I would respond to individual posts as appropriate, but I think this single essay will make things a great deal easier for everybody concerned (including myself).

Let me say that first of all, I think that Lou [Prosperi] has done a fantastic job with Earthdawn. The development of the legend of Barsaive is a truly engrossing story, and I am really looking forward to the next chapter (when it gets picked up by somebody else, which it will -- I'm certain. I don't know who, but the game is too good to just fade out).

[It should be noted that the game was picked up by Living Room Games.]

That being said, I now address game balance -- why does a game have to be balanced in the rules to be good? One game that comes to mind that clearly isn't balanced in the rules is Ars Magica. Magi in Ars Magica can blow any other character in the game out of the water barely raising a sweat. It doesn't mean that they do. The balance in the game (because I believe the game is balanced) is environmental -- enforced not by rules that cut back power on strong characters and boost weak ones, but by a setting that operates a certain way.

If the GM does not operate within that setting (and I'm referring to the general paradigm the game rules are meant to simulate), then balance will have to be imposed by other forces -- generally through house rules and different mechanics.

The mechanics of Earthdawn are meant to reflect the paradigm the setting operates under -- a setting where (I feel) heroes regularly perform nearly impossible feats, magic is a natural part of daily life, and where style and the way you do something is nearly as important as the action itself. It is, I feel, a world where combat should be run the way a Troubadour would tell it -- full of daring swordplay and flashy spells, not a laborious tactical exercise.

That is, I feel, the way the world was approached in design -- the rules were not meant to simulate a "true" battle, they are intentionally fast and loose, allowing a wide range of actions to take place (the introduction to the combat chapter in the basic book even says this). It is small wonder that a player looking for a combat system along the lines of Tunnels & Trolls is disappointed by the rules -- they were not designed with that style of play in mind. Why would you use a system for something it wasn't meant for? Would you use Traveler to run a medieval siege? Would you use TWERPS if you're looking for Chivalry & Sorcery? I don't think so.

In Earthdawn there are a number of different ways to approach magic when you are looking for a certain effect. You can enchant a magic item, Name a spell, create a knack, bind a spirit... the possibilities allow a wide range of actions, and no one way is necessarily "better" than any other. True, as far as the rules go, a Named spell is more "powerful" than a magic item. Strictly from a rules standpoint, this is unbalanced.

So the balance must be environmental. The setting must impose its own limitations. In my opinion, these make a lot more sense because they fit in the world as opposed to being forced on it. Named spells should be more powerful, because the setting places a great importance on Names and Naming (it is one of the core concepts of magical theory, after all). Consequently, other restrictions exist -- not just anybody can Name spells, time and energy must be spent to Name them, and because they are Named, they provide a link (however tenuous) to the Namer.

This is just one example. The closer one's game style is to the development style of a setting, the less conflict you will find with the setting based rules. Personally, I think the Earthdawn rules do a very good job simulating the "realities" of Barsaive (as I see them). I would probably never use the Earthdawn system for a setting other than one that shares the Barsaivian paradigm -- and if I'm doing that, I might as well use Barsaive.

That's not to say that house rules and setting tweaks are bad, I have run into problems with some of the rules (both mechanical and setting-based) myself. I have adjusted those rules to better suit my view of Barsaive. They might work for others, but then again they might not. It is not my place to say what is right for somebody else's game.

If you want to come up with fifty pages of house rules and fixes, that's great (though I would wonder why you're playing a game system you feel the need to modify so much). Some players need mechanical rules to limit their options -- that's okay. Personally, I try to let my imagination be as unhindered as possible, so that when a new or unique rules situation pops up in my game, I can handle it quickly within the paradigm defined by the setting and continue with the story.

Once again, I'm not saying anybody's play style is "wrong," nor am I saying mine is "right." I think Earthdawn was designed with a certain play style in mind, and the farther you stray from that play style, the harder it becomes for the rules to satisfy your requirements, and the more "unbalanced" the game will seem to be.

Rules and setting are not completely independent of each other (especially in Earthdawn). Rules are typically designed to facilitate a certain style of play -- if you have a set of rules that are very mechanic intensive (like Chivalry & Sorcery) you will have a game that feels a great deal more "simulationist" than if you have fast and loose rules that give a more "narrative" feel (like the Storyteller System from White Wolf).

Likewise, the setting should be created with an eye towards the mechanical "feel" of the game -- Barsaive is a place where the seemingly miraculous can be achieved by heroes of legendary stature. It is a place where stories of their deeds are passed down through the years in homes, at taverns, and around campfires. I think the combination of setting and rules in Earthdawn is one of the finest combinations I have seen. It is the benchmark by which I judge any other game I look at.

Back to Top