Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If you had to choose, would you rather have a game...

- that gives lots of options in the variety of units and way they to equip those minis but sacrifices some game balance.

or

-with fewer options but gives a more balanced game experience.

Many folks will of course say you can have both, or that "it depends" but if you had to choose, which would it be and why?

What do you think your choice says about you as a gamer?

If something with more options isn't balanced wouldn't that lead to fewer actual choices as the superior "options" see vastly more play?

Options, every time. I'd rather have the option to take something and be at a disadvantage than not have the option.

 Eldarain wrote:
If something with more options isn't balanced wouldn't that lead to fewer actual choices as the superior "options" see vastly more play?

This ^^
I have the option to take Howling Banshees and Mutilators...but since they're so useless, they're not really an option. I'd rather have a game I could enjoy and feel free to use whatever I want having to worry about "Is this OP or useless?"

Flawed poll is flawed.

Balanced does not mean everything is the same.

Balance, though it should be noted that less options does not mean more balance. As someone pointed out, there are plenty of options in some GW codices, and yet they're only using a few of those options.

I want a game that is balanced because for me its about the fun of playing. If the game is a stinker on the table, I don't want to play it.

I'd choose balance first. I'm creative by nature, so making my army or crew or faction or whatever look and feel unique is not a challenge. Balanced games, however, are dramatically superior for all player types, which means a broader set of social contacts are play-with-able regardless of competitive differences.

On the other hand, playing a game like Malifaux right now helps reinforce that the answer from a game design perspective should always be "both," since "both" is readily executable.

Balance. No question.

Balance, always. Otherwise you have the illusion of choice, since some choices will obviously be better than others and it's poor design to punish someone for taking X instead of Y.

I would chose balance , as we can add to the game with our own home brew options if we want to.
And keeping balance in home brew expansions is MUCH easier if the game you add to has balance.

Trying to add balance back into a game with '*too many options' is impossible.
(*Too many options for the games scale and scope that is.)

Thanks for the responses so far folks. Very interesting to see where folks fall.

For those saying "what about…" or "flawed poll.." or "wouldn't that lead to…" you are thinking to hard. I realize that balance and options might not be mutually exclusive, but if it helps, consider this this basically a "would you rather" question?

Just take a deep breath and pick one.

As for myself I picked options. Though homebrew is always an option, I'd rather have more in-game options in how I equip and setup my units than less, even if it sacrifices a bit of balance. I love playing a game (and I prefer that things be somewhat balanced), but the competitive side of things is a bit less important to me than flexibility and narrative quality of being able to personalize my units.

For example, my favorite game is "Song of Blades and Heroes" I love being able to create my own units, however, it does force the game cub to be a bit vigilant because it's entirely possible to build some units that can make the game incredibly imbalanced.

Given that the ludicrous numbers of fiddly, meaningless options were what drove me away from the core 2, guess my response.

I always think of this article when this type of conversation comes up:

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/fail-safes-in-competitive-game-design-a-detailed-example.html


tl;dr since I'm typing this on a phone: variety and balance do not have to inherently be at odds PROVIDED your system is robust enough or has safeguards in place to make sure things don't get too crazy. That said, this article doesn't mention the potential elephant in the room (GG is notoriously system-heavy by fighting game standards, with 4 separate bars per character to track just as an example), but it's something to consider.

Balance, no question. You can have a well-balanced game with lots of diversity in options, so if you're sacrificing balance to add options you're either an incompetent game designer or adding way too many redundant options. And I don't want a bloated mess of pointless options even if it came without any sacrifices in balance.

I like options, because as a gamer I can always create a semblance of balance via scenario/mission/whatever. Plus, sometimes I want imbalance.

However, I also believe in the "radical" notion that wargaming is a collaborative and not a competitive activity.

I like options... but I don't want to either hilariously handicap myself, or have opponents think I'm a WAAC maniac, just for making use of them.

So that would be a vote for balance.

The best game ever played in a tourney format is a 'HUMAN ONLY' blood bowl league. BAM. Everyone has the exact same everything but can develop and play how they see fit.

Balance over options any day of the week.

 Easy E wrote:

However, I also believe in the "radical" notion that wargaming is a collaborative and not a competitive activity.

I'm going to give this statement some thought. I need to ponder it a bit, but it seems to eloquently sum up a particular point of view that doesn't yet have a commonly agreed upon term, but is sometimes incorrectly blanket-labled as "narrative play".

Thanks for that, I may feel an essay coming on.

 Easy E wrote:
However, I also believe in the "radical" notion that wargaming is a collaborative and not a competitive activity.

A balanced game benefits casual/narrative/collaborative play just as much, if not more, than it does competitive play. If I'm arguing about rules more than playing, it not casual to me.


I'll take balanced, well written rules over options every time.

What good is telling a story everyone knows the end of? That has been my frustration with any attempt at narrative games, they are either never remotely balanced or are ineptly constructed, one might even say the individual behind the narrative was too "naive". I would agree that wargaming is or should be collaberative in so much as ensuring both parties are playing the kind of game they enjoy, but the collaboration is far more difficult when it comes to actually playing the game because you simply cannot be impartial or objective when it comes to interpreting poor rules writing. I'm going to be more objective outside of the game than during one and I'd have to be a masochist to let an opponent walk all over me.

But ya, balance over choice. No doubt I think we'd be better off if we all still played a normal one codex game where actual factions fight each other, instead we have collections of random stuff because narrative. All the added bloat serves only to conceal the rot. Turning 40k into apocalypse has decimated the game and the community, and now it seems to GW any semblance of restraint could potentially affect their revenue stream so god forbid a player ever be told they're only allowed one or a few of anything in particular, we wouldn't dare want to have some order in the chaos. Free market 40k, entitlement 40k, don't limit me 40k... yay...

Balance over options, forever.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
However, I also believe in the "radical" notion that wargaming is a collaborative and not a competitive activity.

A balanced game benefits casual/narrative/collaborative play just as much, if not more, than it does competitive play. If I'm arguing about rules more than playing, it not casual to me.


I'll take balanced, well written rules over options every time.

I also like well-written rules, but that doesn't mean the rules are balanced. For example, the rules for Blackjack are very clear, but they are not balanced because the advantage goes to the dealer. Well-written, but not balanced.

Plus, if you believe as I do that wargaming is a collaborative act, why are you arguing about rules?

 Eilif wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

However, I also believe in the "radical" notion that wargaming is a collaborative and not a competitive activity.

I'm going to give this statement some thought. I need to ponder it a bit, but it seems to eloquently sum up a particular point of view that doesn't yet have a commonly agreed upon term, but is sometimes incorrectly blanket-labled as "narrative play".

Thanks for that, I may feel an essay coming on.

What it is is a simple truth. The fact the game we're probably all thinking of here has no requirement to be refereed or have a game master, you are already relying on player integrity to follow the rules and not cheat. Is it really that big a leap to rely on that same integrity for them to endeavour to make the game enjoyable for you as you are for them? You trust then to play by the rules, is it that hard to trust them to not exploit them?

The only time imbalance is a major issue is when one or both players seek to actively exploit it. In 40k, for example, taking a single Wave Serpent gives no significant advantage over spending the points elsewhere, in same way that taking one Penitent Engine isn't going to impact your chance of winning that severely. It's only a problem when multiplied by the mindset of finding the best possible option and taking as many as possible, which is something rarely seen outside of players actively seeking to do this.

Why is it acceptable that such imbalance between options exist? What are you gaining by having such blatant inequities present?

I just don't see the narrative upside of some units being hot garbage while others excel at everything they do.

Why fracture and chastise a portion of the playerbase for taking strong options in a game built for the express purpose of determining a winner (All I see in the rulebook is the method by which you declare a winner after 5-7 turns. For all the talk of "forging a narrative" the book is incredibly anemic in narrative elements)

 Easy E wrote:
Plus, if you believe as I do that wargaming is a collaborative act, why are you arguing about rules?

Because bad rules cause arguments, collaborative gaming or not. Very many times, issues in interpretation don't come up until you've already hit the table unless every single member of a group is sitting down and reading the rules together at the same time aloud.

 Eldarain wrote:
Why is it acceptable that such imbalance between options exist?

It's acceptable because it gives the ability to endlessly move the goal post, never ever blame the system ever or even look at it and always project all faults on the gamer but never ever the game. (trying to put myself in the mind of the insane lol )

 Eldarain wrote:
What are you gaining by having such blatant inequities present?

The ability to pretend to be unaware and use that as social camouflage to be both immune to criticism "just being fluffy" while dishing out quite a bit criticism of others.

 Eldarain wrote:
I just don't see the narrative upside of some units being hot garbage while others excel at everything they do.

Agreed, some units are just terrible in every way and it doesn't help that GW more or less came out and admit that they don't make rules then models, they make models and then make rules for them, which seems to be about the most inept way to go about making a game.

 Eldarain wrote:
Why fracture and chastise a portion of the playerbase for taking strong options in a game built for the express purpose of determining a winner (All I see in the rulebook is the method by which you declare a winner after 5-7 turns. For all the talk of "forging a narrative" the book is incredibly anemic in narrative elements)

Because doing the inverse would mean I'd actually have to learn to play instead of just saying things are fluffy/unfluffy. The good opponents get better over time, the bad ones just get louder.

 Easy E wrote:

I also like well-written rules, but that doesn't mean the rules are balanced. For example, the rules for Blackjack are very clear, but they are not balanced because the advantage goes to the dealer. Well-written, but not balanced.

Plus, if you believe as I do that wargaming is a collaborative act, why are you arguing about rules?

This is not a terribly apropos example. The imbalance in Blackjack is very slight, even amongst casino games. The imbalance in Blackjack can be as low as 0.28% (assuming 'correct' game-play and Vegas strip dealer rules). It works out for the casino because in the long run the house will make a profit due to the fundamental imbalance of the game.

So, yes, Blackjack is an imbalanced set of rules (like virtually any casino game), but it is the kind of imbalance that a wargame player would probably never notice because of the length of most games and their relative complexity. Additionally, any player going into a Blackjack game knows that the game is imbalanced. That's pretty important. Nobody goes into a casino thinking that the house does not have an edge; they are hoping that they will enjoy some of the money that the casino is sending out of the door.

Even in 'narrative' games, scenarios are usually designed to create balance. Both players might know that the defending army is going to inevitably be overwhelmed, but within that framework the defending player might have 'victory' conditions determined on a basis other than his forces 'winning' the engagement.
My army lost the battle, but because I was able to survive for 7 game turns I accrued more victory points than my opponent, and thus won the game.

As someone else pointed about above, part of the point in playing a game is to see what happens, whether or not you are playing competitively. When a game is imbalanced, it is easier to anticipate the outcome.

As long as both parties have fun in the end either choice doesn't matter to me. (Of course, wargamers are a varied lot)

I will have to say that I find myself enjoying more options over inherit balance.

 Paradigm wrote:
The only time imbalance is a major issue is when one or both players seek to actively exploit it.

The new player who builds an army of the models he likes without understanding how the game works, who then either gets stomped repeatedly because the units he chose were the worst from his codex, or branded 'That Guy' because he happened to choose the units that people don't use through some unspoken agreement on the basis that they are considered beardy... that player might disagree with you.

In 40k, for example, taking a single Wave Serpent gives no significant advantage over spending the points elsewhere, in same way that taking one Penitent Engine isn't going to impact your chance of winning that severely. It's only a problem when multiplied by the mindset of finding the best possible option and taking as many as possible, which is something rarely seen outside of players actively seeking to do this.

What about the guy who took multiple wave serpents because he really, really likes the model, or because the fluff for his home-brew Craftworld has them deploying exclusively in them?

His army is every bit as abusive as the guy doing it to give himself an edge.

To echo insaniak's last comment, this is a game where good intentions will not save you because people will project whatever they want on to you. Whether or not your intention was thematic or based on efficacy in game.

I suppose it comes down to a simple equation of the more options the player has, the more risk inherent in the design of the game mechanics.

If it's handled badly, and depending on the game setting (someone sitting down for a razor-edge tournament of Warmachine might want a different experience to someone re-creating Custer's last stand, for instance), then it can cause problems.

But, the two aren't always mutually exclusive. A well designed game can cater to the player in terms of options but still give them a balanced experience, player ability notwithstanding - Infinity is a great example of this, I read somewhere the developers spent about 4 years playtesting the game before it initially went on sale, they're refining it all the time and it shows with the lack of comments of 'auto win' amongst even the hardcore fraternity of players.