Game Balance

A popular topic. Personally I think it's easiest to comprehend when viewed through the lens of making choices meaningful (ie giving players choices where all options have meaning within the game).

Let's consider the following: here are three options and you get to choose one when your character gets a bonus.

• +1 attack bonus.
• +1 damage bonus.
• +2 damage bonus.

I said three options, but what's that one in the middle? That's the option you choose in order to show everyone what a fuckin dumbass you are. The only two viable options presented here are an attack bonus or a damage bonus, and if you are going to take a damage bonus, you take the +2 and not the +1. The middle choice is a trap.

What happens if we add more context to each choice?

• +1 attack bonus, vorpal blades.
• +1 damage bonus, acid.
• +2 damage bonus, fire.

Now all three options have some narrative flavour to them. One bonus comes from blades, another from acid, the third from fire. Fire and acid do different things, and can be used for different purposes. Escaping from handcuffs or a jail cell is much easier with acid than with fire. Now each of these three choices is a distinct and meaningful option. Yes, the actual damage bonus rating is different, but that only matters if you don't want acid more than fire. If you want the narrative properties of acid, the lower damage bonus is worth it.

I wrote this real fast because the above is one of my go-to examples. Anyway, here's some more just to wrap it up:

Now apply this logic to all choices in a game. If you have a choice between four different character classes and one of them is obviously overpowered, everyone will choose to play that one. Perhaps some people will choose another because of the aesthetics or whatever promises it makes, but if the play experience shows the same one class getting all the spotlight time, then those classes are out of balance.

Imagine a game called Caster Supremacy, with 4 character classes:

• Archer: +5 attack, +3 damage, Bow, Attack Range: 100 feet.
• Fighter: +3 attack, +5 damage, Sword, Attack Range: Touch.
• Thief: +1 attack, +1 damage, Dagger, Attack Range: 30 feet.
• Wizard: +6 attack, +6 damage, Magic Missile, Attack Range: Sight / Infinite.

If these are the only stats that differentiate characters and the game is mostly fighting, there is no reason to play any class other than a Wizard, unless (for some non-game reason) you want to play an ineffective character. Or you just don't know that one choice is clearly superior. But you will find out in play that either you choose Wizard or you suck. This game is not balanced because there is only one meaningful choice.

If one class looks overpowered, but playing the game shows that actually all four classes get spotlight time, have meaningful roles to play, fill different niches, and follow through on whatever promises their aesthetics made to the people who play them, then those classes are balanced. Even if they don't look like it. Because balancing choices isn't always about making all the numbers equal, it's about making different people's different choices enjoyable and not suck.

This is true of every choice a game offers players. If they all lead to distinct outcomes, each of which might be desirable for different reasons (or different people, different circumstances, etc), and none of those choices are traps, then the game is "balanced."