Killing me not so softy with Game Balance

Let’s start this off with a rant.

I've noticed that over the history of rpgs that bad ideas never really die. It would almost serve as a disproof of "survival of the fittest". Course one could say that about western culture as a whole, doomed by its own success- but that's a slightly different subject as in rpgs most of those bad ideas never really enjoyed long lasting success. Rather they sort of creep along forever as 'also rans'. Perhaps in the end it will be survival of the fittest given that such games only exist because western culture no longer weeds out its own unfit at any level. One unstable condition propping up another until they both tumble to earth due to sheer unsupportable weight. Sort of like ‘affordable housing’.

So what inspired that rather pointless (as in, it won't change anything) rant? Dark Heresy and Deadlands, and actually even 1st edition RuneQuest at nearly the dawn of rpg history.

Back in the day, one of the entries for Murphy's Rules was the huge death and maiming toll inflicted by the Great Axe (may have been a different weapon, I forget the details) in RuneQuest. A thousand man army would see dozens fall beneath those deadly blades each round- from self inflicted wounds. Such were the fumble rules.

Murphy Rules made great fun of this, as it was obviously completely silly. No one would use a weapon more dangerous to its user than its targets. Heck, everyone knows that no one would use a weapon that was unlikely to get you though a single battle without injuring or killing you.

And yet, years later come Deadlands. There we have hucksters and mad scientists whose spells and devices are extremely likely to blow away their users. I ran the odds, and just to use a steam wagon or the like for a round trip risked a greater than 50% chance of some sort of failure, and a significant number of them would put you in the hospital or graveyard.

Dark Heresy is the latest game I've encountered using this type of system, where every attempt to use an ability risks the lives not just of the user, but of all his 'friends' within range as well. Like Deadlands before it, the more skilled the user, the more likely things are to get out of hand. Death by game balance.

Who in the world would have thought this was a good idea? Game designers across three decades it seems.

There are only two possible outcomes to this design choice:

1. The benefits of the abilities aren't worth the cost. This means that they aren't used- thus being a waste of rule space at best, or a complete roadblock to the intent of the game at worst.

2. The benefits are worth it, and thus tend to be game breaking in and of themselves. After all, it’s worth the risk of death if that ability is the only way (and certain way) of achieving the goal. And that means all those other less dangerous abilities your character has- Meaningless. Of course, they may not work and you could die from the attempt ending your play in the campaign- because balance.


So they break the campaign when they work- and then break it when they fail and kill the PCs. Designers are still making these systems, players are still buying them. And people wonder why I have a low opinion of the hobby.

Now one may say that such a system is perfect for those types of campaigns who’s whole point is having the characters die. Sure, one can say that. But it doesn’t raise my opinion of the hobby any…