Game Balance theory - Why I feel Tier 1 is not the problem

[Quertus]

The following is, despite the title, designed for a largely system-agnostic discussion about game balance and roles.

-----

Let's say you have a game with three roles: striker, tank, and healer. Then you build characters to cover each of these roles.

The Striker deals 1d6+6 damage on a hit.

The Tank deals 1d6 damage on a hit, and causes foes he attacks to suffer a 6-point penalty when attacking anyone else.

The Healer deals 1d6 damage on a hit, and heals someone for 6.

Let's say you've done the math, play tested the game, and these roles feel balanced. A team of 3 of the same character struggles a lot more than a balanced party, but, with luck and skill, technically can overcome most challenges. Playing with such an unbalanced team becomes known as Hard Mode.

Adding in a 4th character of any given role to a balanced team greatly improves the group performance. However, scaling encounters becomes a bit tricky, as, depending on what the 4th character is affects how easily they can handle what types of challenges.

You really want everyone to have the option to play a different character, but your game only has 3 roles. Eventually, you build a new character, the gish.

The Gish deals 1d6+2 damage on a hit, causes foes he attacks to suffer a 2-point penalty when attacking anyone else, and heals someone for 2.

The gish gently improves the party's ability to handle all encounters, making scaling encounters from a team of 3 to a team of 4 easy.

The gish is also popular among those who want to try out different roles, or who really want to pay one role, but realize that the group needs a different role filled, and don't want to go full Hard Mode of ignoring that role.

Interestingly, the all-gish party is not Hard Mode.

Because of the popularity of the gish, you decide to build 3 new characters: the dedicated tank, the dedicated healer, and the toolkit.

The Dedicated Tank deals no damage on a hit, but causes foes he attacks to suffer a 12-point penalty when attacking anyone else.

The Dedicated Healer deals no damage on a hit, but heals someone for 12.

The Toolkit has 3 strikes, which he must choose from each turn: the first deals 1d6+5 damage on a hit; the second deals 1d6 damage on a hit, and causes foes he attacks to suffer a 5-point penalty when attacking anyone else; the third deals 1d6 damage on a hit, and heals someone for 5.

When played by someone who really just wants to play one role, the toolkit slightly under performs, but it really shines in the hands of someone who can modify their strategy based on the group and the opposition.

The all toolkit team is also viable, although, not surprisingly, it performs well in scenarios that favor one role, and under performs where the balanced team or all gish team are strongest.

The two dedicated characters receive mixed reviews. Sometimes, they feel like they're performing the work of two characters; other times, you'd really much rather have the extra damage. And the all dedicated team is a complete failure. It is quite literally impossible for them to succeed.

Then someone jokingly builds a character who quickly becomes known as the solo.

The Solo deals 1d6+6 damage on a hit, causes foes he attacks to suffer a 6-point penalty when attacking anyone else, and heals someone for 6.

-----

So, what does all that have to do with tiers? I'm getting to that, but, first, one more tangent.

Video games often have difficulty levels. This is because, due to mood, experience, personality, etc, people don't always desire the same level of challenge. This is a feature, not a bug.

The same is true in RPGs. Sometimes, people want to play BDHs; other times, people want to play the underdog. Sometimes, people want a balanced party that can cover all the bases; other times, people want the challenge of getting square pegs to fit in round holes.

What characters you pick communicates which type of game you want.

The problem is, this communication often goes unnoticed. Worse, the selection of difficulty mode is often entirely unintentional.

People think when they're taking a Fighter that they're going to be BDHs. Really, by choosing a character of limited breadth, they're selecting to potentially play Hard Mode.

"Tier 1", defined by being able to do anything, is not the problem. It's actually one path to making BDHs: build characters with more breadth. The other path to BDHs is to throw balance out the window, and make characters grossly overpowered.

Which of these is a better solution?

[ImNotTrevor]

Neither, in my opinion. At least, not as a remedy.

The two problems with systems that have Tiers in the way D&D does are the following:
1. The Tiers were not made on purpose, and are not part of the design goals of the game. They are a result of a failure of the design goal of having balanced options. (D&D wants you to believe that a Monk and a Wizard are equally viable choices.)
2. People generally are unaware of what tiers different classes fall into, because this is not written into the rules. It's a thing some forum guys set up later.

If a game were to state outright that certain classes/playstyles fall into different power levels, and that it is best not to mix them, I would first be surprised that they decided to go this route instead of much more elegant methods like Point-based classless systems. Secondly, I would be OK with it because at lease they acknowledge and inform the player about the tier.

A system that does not acknowledge the tiers, produced them on accident, and tries to sell all options as equally viable, is a system with an inherent and crucial design flaw.

Build a game where the tiers are a named and talked-about part of the system, and all is well.

The other option is to make sure each character occupies a specific niche and stays within that niche but can branch out in a pinch. (See Apocalypse World Playbooks for a good application of this principal)

(Edit: to put it simply, my problem is not that Tier 1 exists. It os that Tier 1 and 4 are being sold to us by the system as being equal, and are expected to adventure together by the same.)

[Quertus]

Neither, in my opinion. At least, not as a remedy.

The two problems with systems that have Tiers in the way D&D does are the following:
1. The Tiers were not made on purpose, and are not part of the design goals of the game. They are a result of a failure of the design goal of having balanced options. (D&D wants you to believe that a Monk and a Wizard are equally viable choices.)
2. People generally are unaware of what tiers different classes fall into, because this is not written into the rules. It's a thing some forum guys set up later.

If a game were to state outright that certain classes/playstyles fall into different power levels, and that it is best not to mix them, I would first be surprised that they decided to go this route instead of much more elegant methods like Point-based classless systems. Secondly, I would be OK with it because at lease they acknowledge and inform the player about the tier.

A system that does not acknowledge the tiers, produced them on accident, and tries to sell all options as equally viable, is a system with an inherent and crucial design flaw.

Build a game where the tiers are a named and talked-about part of the system, and all is well.

The other option is to make sure each character occupies a specific niche and stays within that niche but can branch out in a pinch. (See Apocalypse World Playbooks for a good application of this principal)

(Edit: to put it simply, my problem is not that Tier 1 exists. It os that Tier 1 and 4 are being sold to us by the system as being equal, and are expected to adventure together by the same.)

"Best not to mix them" if you desire balance within the party. As some of my most fun gaming experiences involve a severe lack of balance within the party, I personally find it best to mix them.

However, I think, aside from my previous statement, we're talking about different things, because you brought up "power level". Which is part of why I made this thread.

Now, I could be wrong, but as I understand it, "Tier 1" is defined by its breadth of options. It's the Toolkit in my example. That the implementation in 3e involves, at times, completely different levels of power floor or ceiling is a separate discussion. The question is merely whether "Tier 1" is inherently conceptually unbalanced.

Yes, you can completely mess up balance, and have both an instajib charger and a pathetic blaster mage as possible characters. Just like you could have messed up balance, and given the Striker 1d6+99 damage, or felt that healing was a thankless job, and given the Healer 1d6+5 damage. But that's not the point of this conversation.

The point is whether being able to do anything is inherently unbalanced. My claim is that it is not. Being able to do everything, simultaneously, like the Solo, OTOH, is.

However, you hit the nail on the head regarding the obfuscation of tiering and its effects on the game. I think there would be far less discontent if a) everyone knew what they were getting into when they picked a class, and b) each class had options to exist at each tier, and each power level. EDIT: so, if I want to play a lower tier Wizard, I play a War Mage or a Beguiler. If I want to play a Tier 1 Fighter, I play... ? If I want to play a powerful Fighter, I play an ubercharger or pouncing TWF SA variant or 3.0 Vorpal build. Etc.

Role protection is a more difficult topic. Fortunately, my example facilitates that discussion, too.

Let's say you've got a 4-person team of a Striker, a Tank, a Healer, and a Toolkit. If there's only one person who needs healed, and the Toolkit heals them, stealing the Healer's thunder, that's not only a violation of role protection, that's just bad tactics. It's dumb. They should get chewed out by their fellow players for being an idiot. The problem should be self correcting.

It's the same thing - or should be - for the D&D Wizard (of any edition I've played) with idiotic use of their limited spell slots to steal the spotlight from characters who already have that role covered.

[JAL_1138]

Tier 1 isn't simply a breadth of options. Tier 3 can pull that off too. Tier 1, at least in the JaronK system, is defined largely by gamebreaking ability.

Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.

(Emphasis added).

Your "Solo" example is stronger than all the other classes, but doesn't have the degree of "I win" buttons that a Tier 1 has—none of those classes do. Use enemies that hit harder, or use more enemies, and the problem is largely solved. Whereas a Tier 1 can do things [edit: has multiple easy ways to do things] like "end the encounter before anyone else can act," "avoid/circumvent a challenge altogether," or in egregious cases, "blow up the campaign setting entirely with a little bit of prep time."

EDIT: point being that power level is a key component of tiering; the difference between a Tier 3 (does one thing really well, or does everything pretty well) and a Tier 2 (same raw gamebreaking power as a Tier 1, can actually be more restricted in options than a generalist Tier 3 but can do vastly more powerful/world-altering things) is in power rather than options.

Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.

[Frozen_Feet]

Well this is a rare case of all posters so far being right, more or less.

Quertus is right that the problem is not existence of different character tiers or mixing of characters of different tiers in the same game. It is perfectly fine to play the game on Hard Mode, either individually or as a group.

ImNotTrevor is right that accidental power differences combined with pretension of all character types being equal is the problem.

And JAL is right that JaronK's tier system includes a clause about game-breaking power. In that, the definitions given by JaronK and Quertus differ. Quertus's definition is more neutral - I don't think anyone could argue that breadth of ability is automatically bad. JaronK's is less so. I'd find it hard to justify, if designing a new game, why exactly I'd give any character "campaign breaking" power or abilities which mechanically solve encounters with "little thought from the player".

I want my games to engage my players and that implies making them think about what's actually happening in it. For that, JaronK's Tier 1s would be counter-productive. Quertus's Tier 1s wouldn't be.

[JeenLeen]

If I want to play a Tier 1 Fighter, I play... ? If I want to play a powerful Fighter, I play an ubercharger or pouncing TWF SA variant or 3.0 Vorpal build. Etc.

Role protection is a more difficult topic. Fortunately, my example facilitates that discussion, too.

Let's say you've got a 4-person team of a Striker, a Tank, a Healer, and a Toolkit. If there's only one person who needs healed, and the Toolkit heals them, stealing the Healer's thunder, that's not only a violation of role protection, that's just bad tactics. It's dumb. They should get chewed out by their fellow players for being an idiot. The problem should be self correcting.

It's the same thing - or should be - for the D&D Wizard (of any edition I've played) with idiotic use of their limited spell slots to steal the spotlight from characters who already have that role covered.

About the role protection with D&D (at least in 3.5, may differ for other editions):

I think the biggest issue is that a Tier 1 class can generally be better at any role than another class. For example, if I want a skillmonkey, a human rogue 1/wizard x with the Able Learner feat (to make all rogue skills stay class skills) is probably a better build than a traditional skillmonkey: get rogue skills, great reason to pump Int for more points, and can choose spells to facilitate your skill use. Cleric- or druidzilla builds are generally better fighters than the fighter/striker (spellcaster buffs + whatever feats you want for ubercharger). Although barbarians or fighters might seem better tanks, a buffed-up spellcaster is probably better. (Can't really write a parallel for healer, since in-combat healing isn't a big thing in 3.5 and cleric and druid are tier 1s.)

I do admit that a wizard/cleric/druid can be a better 'wizard' than it can be a fighter. But my point is that, if I wanted to be the best skillmonkey or best fighter I could do, at least in D&D 3.5 I would choose a tier 1 caster and 'optimize' for my role instead of being the world-breaking caster.

Thus, I think role protection is a weak concept with the tiers going around. Instead of being mad at the wizard for wasting its power outshining the skillmonkey, the party might be mad at the skillmonkey for making a bad skillmonkey. (assuming players are getting bad about sub-optimal choices at all)

[Frozen_Feet]

From a game design perspective, though, why I'd make the magic class better at skills than the skill class?

That's the state as it is in d20 D&D, but one could argue it's really a design error.

[Quertus]

Tier 1 isn't simply a breadth of options. Tier 3 can pull that off too. Tier 1, at least in the JaronK system, is defined largely by gamebreaking ability.

(Emphasis added).

Your "Solo" example is stronger than all the other classes, but doesn't have the degree of "I win" buttons that a Tier 1 has—none of those classes do. Use enemies that hit harder, or use more enemies, and the problem is largely solved. Whereas a Tier 1 can do things [edit: has multiple easy ways to do things] like "end the encounter before anyone else can act," "avoid/circumvent a challenge altogether," or in egregious cases, "blow up the campaign setting entirely with a little bit of prep time."

EDIT: point being that power level is a key component of tiering; the difference between a Tier 3 (does one thing really well, or does everything pretty well) and a Tier 2 (same raw gamebreaking power as a Tier 1, can actually be more restricted in options than a generalist Tier 3 but can do vastly more powerful/world-altering things) is in power rather than options.

I have tried to design the simplest system possible to discuss the tiers.

The characters I built have "I Win" buttons: the Healer wins against sufficiently low damage encounters, the Striker wins against sufficiently low health opposition, and the Toolkit wins against both. So my example still works fine for a discussion of that part of the definition of Tiers. So, from the sounds of it, my Gestalt and both "Dedicated" builds are Tier 3; my Striker and Healer are Tier 2, and my Toolkit is Tier 1.

That Tier 1 is defined by game breaking ability sounds like a fault in the tier system. That sounds like it should be an entirely separate discussion. :smallannoyed

The Angry Immortal can break the campaign setting by literally breaking the campaign world, and can do this on a Commoner chassis. Thus, this should be divorced from any discussions of focus, flexibility, or ability to solo encounters, IMO.

[JeenLeen]

I think I agree with you and ImNotTrevor in that there could be a system built with unbalanced classes, but the classes are linked to tiers so that you can play on 'hard' to 'easy' mode, as you wish. Such would be a strange game design to me, but a cool one. Almost like Exalted 2e, with Solars and their equivalents at the top, then Sidereals and Lunars, then Dragonblooded.

I think it would be interesting to see if, in a supposedly balanced system like that, some builds tended to jump tiers. Like something designed as tier 1 not holding up, or a tier 2 really being tier 3 usefulness.

The characters I built have "I Win" buttons: the Healer wins against sufficiently low damage encounters, the Striker wins against sufficiently low health opposition, and the Toolkit wins against both. So my example still works fine for a discussion of that part of the definition of Tiers. So, from the sounds of it, my Gestalt and both "Dedicated" builds are Tier 3; my Striker and Healer are Tier 2, and my Toolkit is Tier 1.

Some of your enemy concepts seem... strawman-esque (might not be using the term right.) What sort of enemy would be an effective enemy but also deal low damage? (In your theoretical system, status ailments and one-shot-kills don't seem to be a thing yet, so I'm leaving those options out.) I was thinking it might be something like healer-types weak to strikers, striker-types weak to tanks, and tank-types weak to healers--but upon thinking about it more, it doesn't really work. (I am tired and might not be doing the thinking right.)

I guess I'm arguing that the 'I Win' buttons would only work against weak foes, which really anyone could beat.

However, I reckon I'm envisioning the system different than you are, so I reckon you have a good counter-argument.

[Frozen_Feet]

I think it would be interesting to see if, in a supposedly balanced system like that, some builds tended to jump tiers. Like something designed as tier 1 not holding up, or a tier 2 really being tier 3 usefulness.

Oh, you would almost certainly see that in the playtesting phase of a new system. Foolproof design in complex games is damn-near impossible, because fools are so ingenious. That's why most games lack in-built tiers and like JaronK's system, the tiers are come up by the players after extended play and tied to some specific metagame. Outside tabletop games, Pokemon is an easily-studied example.

It is also typical that characters move up or down a tier as the metagame changes.

The takeaway is that the more complex a game becomes, the more playtesting is required to see if tiers hold up.

[Quertus]

Well this is a rare case of all posters so far being right, more or less.

And JAL is right that JaronK's tier system includes a clause about game-breaking power. In that, the definitions given by JaronK and Quertus differ. Quertus's definition is more neutral - I don't think anyone could argue that breadth of ability is automatically bad. JaronK's is less so. I'd find it hard to justify, if designing a new game, why exactly I'd give any character "campaign breaking" power or abilities which mechanically solve encounters with "little thought from the player".

I want my games to engage my players and that implies making them think about what's actually happening in it. For that, JaronK's Tier 1s would be counter-productive. Quertus's Tier 1s wouldn't be.

Yeah, I'm not seeing the value in conflating those ideas.

About the role protection with D&D (at least in 3.5, may differ for other editions):

I think the biggest issue is that a Tier 1 class can generally be better at any role than another class.

This may be an issue of the specific implementation of the tiers as they exist in 3e. I am attempting to divorce the conversation from such specific implementations, in order to ask such questions as, "is avoiding 'Tier 1' a good design goal?". I have held, and continue to hold, that Tier 1 is the solution, not the problem. But I could be wrong. So is like to discuss the tiers with the simplest implementation I could think of, so as to better see and define the problem, and develop successful solutions, rather than talking in circles about S's Wizards.

From a game design perspective, though, why I'd make the magic class better at skills than the skill class?

That's the state as it is in d20 D&D, but one could argue it's really a design error.

I'm not convinced that it is.

Now, why the Striker class (rogue) is better at skills than the nominal Toolkit combatant (Fighter) or most any other class in the game is a bit puzzling...

Some of your enemy concepts seem... strawman-esque (might not be using the term right.) What sort of enemy would be an effective enemy but also deal low damage? (In your theoretical system, status ailments and one-shot-kills don't seem to be a thing yet, so I'm leaving those options out.) I was thinking it might be something like healer-types weak to strikers, striker-types weak to tanks, and tank-types weak to healers--but upon thinking about it more, it doesn't really work. (I am tired and might not be doing the thinking right.)

I guess I'm arguing that the 'I Win' buttons would only work against weak foes, which really anyone could beat.

However, I reckon I'm envisioning the system different than you are, so I reckon you have a good counter-argument.

If you play my game "as intended", 100 kobalds* is a challenge. If you do the math, and have your Healer hold a choke point, you just win.

* or rabid puppies, or angry birds, or whatever.

Oh, you would almost certainly see that in the playtesting phase of a new system. Foolproof design in complex games is damn-near impossible, because fools are so ingenious. That's why most games lack in-built tiers and like JaronK's system, the tiers are come up by the players after extended play and tied to some specific metagame. Outside tabletop games, Pokemon is an easily-studied example.

It is also typical that characters move up or down a tier as the metagame changes.

The takeaway is that the more complex a game becomes, the more playtesting is required to see if tiers hold up.

MTG?

[ImNotTrevor]

I find the idea of a single class able to do anything to cause me to have the following question:
Why would I play anything else?

If my Gish can optimize into tanking without the losses associated with being a Tank... why play a tank unless I'm really just that into the tank thing?

I'm fine with playing a Slightly Worse At Tanking But Better At Everything Else Offtank class moreso than I Only Tank. Keeps me from being pidgeonholed. I do the stuff I'm good at but nothing stops me from dabbling. So if our Striker goes down we're not up Chocolate Creek without a paddle. Me and the other Gish can Sorta-Striker our way through the encounter.

The Do Anything Guy is the most efficient choice every time. So why bother having other classes at all?

At least, the way most classes in D&D function works like that or worse, they're just flat better at everything.

I think the best way to word my ideal class is that it has a NARRARIVE Niche that it fulfills. Difficult in more strictly mechanical games, but still possible.

My Faceless in Apocalypse World is a violent, crazy ragemonster. All of his moves(abilities) point to this.
When I'm being violent and psycho, I get more armor.
I deal more harm than others because I'm bloodthirsty.
I can consult the mask I wear, and if I do what it says I get XP.
If someone greivously injures me, I can vow revenge and forever have bonuses to hurt them.
I can explode through terrain to reach my victims.

Everything about these abilities screams "This person is crazy and will beat you to death with your own arms." Mechanically and narratively, they line up.

There is a class that is a disciplined military type.
Their moves include seeing the strength in others, mitigating the damage they deal through restraint and precision, keeping their cool under fire, and seeing things as they really are. As mechanical things.

There is a class that owns an establishment (like a restaurant or brothel). It details the establishment, gives you moves to use your establishment as leverage, poison your enemies when they are within your place, and even use your dedicated patrons as your eyes and ears.

I want my class to do the sorts of things I imagine this person doing Narratively. If I have a Knight, he better inspire people. He better be able to stand tall against evil. He better have a quest that motivates him.

If I'm playing a mage, I want to do magic but without being able to brush off all cost. I want to be strange, mysterious, esoteric. I want to be the pressure valve in front of phenomenal cosmic power who has to let out his power a little bit at a time or risk being consumed and destroyed by the very power he weilds. And that should be MECHANISED!

So my niches aren't of the sort where "this person does damage, this person soaks damage." That doesn't interest me. I'm more interested in "This person communes with nature, this person is a knight on a holy quest."

Probably why I like PbtA systems more than D20 systems.

[Quertus]

I find the idea of a single class able to do anything to cause me to have the following question:
Why would I play anything else?

If my Gish can optimize into tanking without the losses associated with being a Tank... why play a tank unless I'm really just that into the tank thing?

I'm fine with playing a Slightly Worse At Tanking But Better At Everything Else Offtank class moreso than I Only Tank. Keeps me from being pidgeonholed. I do the stuff I'm good at but nothing stops me from dabbling. So if our Striker goes down we're not up Chocolate Creek without a paddle. Me and the other Gish can Sorta-Striker our way through the encounter.

The Do Anything Guy is the most efficient choice every time. So why bother having other classes at all?

At least, the way most classes in D&D function works like that or worse, they're just flat better at everything.

I think the best way to word my ideal class is that it has a NARRARIVE Niche that it fulfills. Difficult in more strictly mechanical games, but still possible.

My Faceless in Apocalypse World is a violent, crazy ragemonster. All of his moves(abilities) point to this.
When I'm being violent and psycho, I get more armor.
I deal more harm than others because I'm bloodthirsty.
I can consult the mask I wear, and if I do what it says I get XP.
If someone greivously injures me, I can vow revenge and forever have bonuses to hurt them.
I can explode through terrain to reach my victims.

Everything about these abilities screams "This person is crazy and will beat you to death with your own arms." Mechanically and narratively, they line up.

There is a class that is a disciplined military type.
Their moves include seeing the strength in others, mitigating the damage they deal through restraint and precision, keeping their cool under fire, and seeing things as they really are. As mechanical things.

There is a class that owns an establishment (like a restaurant or brothel). It details the establishment, gives you moves to use your establishment as leverage, poison your enemies when they are within your place, and even use your dedicated patrons as your eyes and ears.

I want my class to do the sorts of things I imagine this person doing Narratively. If I have a Knight, he better inspire people. He better be able to stand tall against evil. He better have a quest that motivates him.

If I'm playing a mage, I want to do magic but without being able to brush off all cost. I want to be strange, mysterious, esoteric. I want to be the pressure valve in front of phenomenal cosmic power who has to let out his power a little bit at a time or risk being consumed and destroyed by the very power he weilds. And that should be MECHANISED!

So my niches aren't of the sort where "this person does damage, this person soaks damage." That doesn't interest me. I'm more interested in "This person communes with nature, this person is a knight on a holy quest."

Probably why I like PbtA systems more than D20 systems.

Very off topic, but how well can a mage run a hotel? How well can the brothel owner see things as they really are, or deal and mitigate damage? What tier are these characters?

[Vitruviansquid]

I find the idea of a single class able to do anything to cause me to have the following question:
Why would I play anything else?

If my Gish can optimize into tanking without the losses associated with being a Tank... why play a tank unless I'm really just that into the tank thing?

I'm fine with playing a Slightly Worse At Tanking But Better At Everything Else Offtank class moreso than I Only Tank. Keeps me from being pidgeonholed. I do the stuff I'm good at but nothing stops me from dabbling. So if our Striker goes down we're not up Chocolate Creek without a paddle. Me and the other Gish can Sorta-Striker our way through the encounter.

The Do Anything Guy is the most efficient choice every time. So why bother having other classes at all?

At least, the way most classes in D&D function works like that or worse, they're just flat better at everything.

The point of a class system isn't to FORCE a group of players to choose all different classes.

The point of a class system is to ALLOW players within the group to play in different styles that they like.

The problem with D&D is that it has a bunch of classes Quertus would label "The Solo," but in theory, the existence of what Quertus labels "the Gish" doesn't actually compare to or excel over the other classes and is not the most efficient choice all the time.

[Frozen_Feet]

Well when you consider how good design tiers are, you might consider few particular types of player:

The "Stop having fun, guys!" player and "Your fun is ruining my fun!" player.

The former will insist that everyone has to play the game at the edge of optimization. Anyone who shows up at the table without Tier 1 character is doing something wrong in their opinion.

The latter is offended by another player having a different tier character than them. If another player has a higher tier character, they will complain how "they're putting power over flavor" or "they're stealing the spotlight". If another player has a lower tier character, they will complain about how "they're not pulling their weight" or how "they're forcing everyone to play on a lower level!"

The nonsense in this, as pertains to roleplaying games, is the failure to appreciate the player-character-distinction. That is: a player might be able to choose whatever arbitrary character they want, but this is not reflective of an in-game reality where any arbitrary character another player might want is accessible. That is: if three players create Tier 1s and a fourth makes a Tier 3, it often makes no sense to complain about this from an in-game perspective, because in the game there might not be fourth Tier 1. The characters don't have option of four Tier 1s... it's either three Tier 1s, or them plus a Tier 3.

Tl;dr: for mixed tier gaming where you want each individual player to have maximal freedom of character selection, you need to preface it with "all of you are going to make your characters individually and deal with how to work as a group after-the-fact; if you have objections, speak now or be forever silent". And then stomp out any notion that deliberately playing a weaker character is synonymous with being a bad player, in any sense of the word.

---

EDIT:

@ImNotTrevor:

The most trivial answer to "why play anything else?" is always "For the challenge." A low tier plays differently than a high tier, and a group of low or mixed tiers even more so.

The next most trivial, in the context of roleplaying games, is "because the role I want to play only has these abilities, not those". The choice to play deliberately suboptimal characters is something that should exist and be preserved, even against group pressure.

[Max_Killjoy]

Some people want their characters to have defined Game roles, with mechanical support.

Some people want their characters to have defined Narrative roles, with mechanical support.

...

Then there's me... I hate roles. I hate archetypes. I hate character-tropes. I hate being shown a set of boxes and told "your character must fit in one of these". As I look at it, people are not roles or archetypes or tropes, they don't exist to play a part in a story or a game -- they're individuals. I want the mechanics to represent what character as a specific individual person can do.

( This is related to why I also hate those stupid "personality archetype" tests that snakeoil salespeople sell to companies, convincing them it helps them understand their employees. Pigeonholes are stupid. "Oh, you're an X, that means you like X things and do X things and are good in X roles." )

[Frozen_Feet]

For a roleplaying game, a role really just means an individual character and their personality. It can be constructed from genre tropes, from game tropes, or to emulate a real person, or to a degree even all of those.

But even if a game treats roles as individuals, that doesn't prevent players from coming up with categories and tiers after-the-fact. For example, in a point-buy system, some skills may be more usefull than others, and some methods of point-allocation more optimal than others. So even of the game itself does not have character classes or tiers, you can quickly get player saying "if you want to play this kind of character, you should totally put your points like so".

[icefractal]

I think that while versatility is beyond doubt an important factor, most Tier discussions overstate its primacy. Yes, versatility can make up for less raw power - to an extent. And characters with no versatility can often be stymied in fairly simple ways. But at the end of the day, power is still the factor that wins you fights, and the factor that most often leads to people feeling overshadowed.

A Mailman Sorcerer is technically lower tier than a non-early-entry Mystic Theurge, and is indeed less versatile, but in most campaigns the former is going to be way more dominating of screen-time than the latter.

[ImNotTrevor]

Very off topic, but how well can a mage run a hotel? How well can the brothel owner see things as they really are, or deal and mitigate damage? What tier are these characters?

If you want a run a hotel, a mage is probably not the thing you want. Though I see no problem wanting to make a thing that blends the two, or using the narrative freedom within the system to say that some of your Hotel Skills have a root in magic. But at that point I have to ask if you're playing a Mage who just happens to own a hotel or a hotel owner who happens to be magical. That would be a very difficult line to straddle. Possible in most PbtA systems, sure.

I suppose saying "sees things as they really are" is inaccurate. Better to say they gain additional insight through their military training that others might not see. The brothel owner can still fight people, and can still use armor. They just don't (normally) gain additional damage resistance from being a raging psychopath (who, fictionally, is still getting injured. It just doesn't matter to them.)


Where I imagine this will go is back to the "niches are just stuff you're good at." Though my response to this is that the Gunlugger also deals lots of damage (More than the Faceless, even) and has lots of armor as well. But their power comes from being loaded with guns, and lots of them, not from raging. (And yes, there is a mechanical/narrative distinction there)

So the narrative niches are protected, even when skills are similar. Both the mayoresque character and the gang leader character have leadership skills and can direct gangs around. But their approaches are wildly different. Both a Savvyhead and a Hocus can access the Augury ability, but the former does so through esoteric machines and the latter through communion with her worshippers.

Some abilities are distinct and unique, but most are a difference of approach and the particulars of likely outcomes. There is a difference between being leader because you're inately in charge by rank, and being in charge because you're strongest. Apocalypse World has mechanised that difference.

The point of a class system isn't to FORCE a group of players to choose all different classes.

The point of a class system is to ALLOW players within the group to play in different styles that they like.

The problem with D&D is that it has a bunch of classes Quertus would label "The Solo," but in theory, the existence of what Quertus labels "the Gish" doesn't actually compare to or excel over the other classes and is not the most efficient choice all the time.

My issue is more in line with your last paragraph than the others. Again, I have no problem with many different classes and abilities. I really like them, actually. I also like classless systems. If it's well designed and more on the narrative focus end of things, I will probably like it.

I guess Gish was the wrong term, but we're pretty much agreed here.

@ImNotTrevor:

The most trivial answer to "why play anything else?" is always "For the challenge." A low tier plays differently than a high tier, and a group of low or mixed tiers even more so.

The next most trivial, in the context of roleplaying games, is "because the role I want to play only has these abilities, not those". The choice to play deliberately suboptimal characters is something that should exist and be preserved, even against group pressure.

I'll make two points:
I'm in favor of having multiple possibilities as far as classes go. Since I have no narrative frame of reference for these hypothetical classes, I can't make assumptions about what sorts of characters do and don't fit them. So I'm not really going to touch on that point.

If you wanna play for challenge, sure. But I'm thinking that's a deliberate GROUP choice, and shouldn't be made solo for the same reasons why you shouldn't bring steak to the vegetarian cookout without asking.

TRPGs are a GROUP activity. If you're faced with an entire group saying "we're not certain you're on the same page with us" it is probably unwise to both outright ignore them and insist on staying in the group at the same time. As a GM I would dismiss such players from my table out-of-hand to prevent further problems. If everyone else is OK with having one oddball underdog, that's one thing. If the entire group is saying "but we wanted a tale of epic heroes" to which one individual is saying "screw you, I'm playing a crippled orphan," that's a problem. So is the exact inverse. If the group is saying "but we want to be crippled orphans" and one person is saying "screw you I'm an epic hero" I will have exactly as much problem. Because the specifics of the character aren't the problem. It's a player belligerance issue at that point. (And really, if the group and you want wildly different game experiences... why are you playing with them in the first place? At this point I'm doing this player a favor.)

Long story short, TRPGs are group things. Ignoring "group pressure" (AKA what the other human beings playing the game would like to see in the game) is probably a bad idea in such a group environment.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

Re: the tier system

Has anyone actually been arguing that the tier 1/2 classes being game breaking is a feature (or even desirable)? I think we can all agree that no system should intentionally make certain classes able to break campaigns over their knee

[Vitruviansquid]

Re: the tier system

Has anyone actually been arguing that the tier 1/2 classes being game breaking is a feature (or even desirable)? I think we can all agree that no system should intentionally make certain classes able to break campaigns over their knee

I have seen these arguments, and I think the people who make them would tell you it's your own fault for playing with a GM who is not an all-knowing god of system mastery and who is unwilling to make the setting equally ridiculous to counter to the ridiculous shenanigans your tier 1 class pulls.

[Quertus]

If you wanna play for challenge, sure. But I'm thinking that's a deliberate GROUP choice, and shouldn't be made solo for the same reasons why you shouldn't bring steak to the vegetarian cookout without asking.

TRPGs are a GROUP activity. If you're faced with an entire group saying "we're not certain you're on the same page with us" it is probably unwise to both outright ignore them and insist on staying in the group at the same time. As a GM I would dismiss such players from my table out-of-hand to prevent further problems. If everyone else is OK with having one oddball underdog, that's one thing. If the entire group is saying "but we wanted a tale of epic heroes" to which one individual is saying "screw you, I'm playing a crippled orphan," that's a problem. So is the exact inverse. If the group is saying "but we want to be crippled orphans" and one person is saying "screw you I'm an epic hero" I will have exactly as much problem. Because the specifics of the character aren't the problem. It's a player belligerance issue at that point. (And really, if the group and you want wildly different game experiences... why are you playing with them in the first place? At this point I'm doing this player a favor.)

Long story short, TRPGs are group things. Ignoring "group pressure" (AKA what the other human beings playing the game would like to see in the game) is probably a bad idea in such a group environment.

Yes and no.

How does me being crippled affect whether or not you are playing Hercules?

There is a difference between wanting control over your character, and wanting to have control over what type of story is being told. I'm firmly against all forms of the latter, including on the GM side, where it is often referred to as "Railroading", because it is harmful to the former. The exception being if the group comes to a consensus on the style of game beforehand.

Re: the tier system

Has anyone actually been arguing that the tier 1/2 classes being game breaking is a feature (or even desirable)? I think we can all agree that no system should intentionally make certain classes able to break campaigns over their knee

No, I've just been arguing that statements about ability to destroy the campaign have no place in any measure of a character, including the tier system.

[goto124]

How does me being crippled affect whether or not you are playing Hercules?

If there's a crippled 100% regular human in the same team as Hercules, how does the GM consistently create encounters (not necessarily combat) such that the Hercules does not keep overshadowing the human?

The human could be good at social skills... I feel I've seen this somewhere before...

[Cluedrew]

No, I've just been arguing that statements about ability to destroy the campaign have no place in any measure of a character, including the tier system.

But isn't that what tier 1 (and tier 2 to a lesser extent) means in the tier system?

If you want to talk about tier 1 characters in a different context: What exactly is that context? What are your tiers? What is a tier 2? 3?

On Cripples: I think it is a matter of tone and balance as well.

[ImNotTrevor]

Yes and no.

How does me being crippled affect whether or not you are playing Hercules?

As someone already said, it doesn't affect the characters. But it will play hell with the GMs job unless this crippled orphan is at least somewhat as skilled as Hercules is strong. I'm not asking for percect balance (What exactly does it even mean to be as good at talking to people as Herculese is strong? But trying is prefered). We're all here to play a game. If Herculese is the only one who actually has to engage with the rules because the crippled orphan doesn't do anything that engages the "game" part of the RPG, there's something wonky going on that NEEDS to have been agreed to beforehand to avoid causing displeasure from/between the two parties

There is a difference between wanting control over your character, and wanting to have control over what type of story is being told. I'm firmly against all forms of the latter, including on the GM side, where it is often referred to as "Railroading", because it is harmful to the former. The exception being if the group comes to a consensus on the style of game beforehand

Honestly, having a discussion that gets to a consensus on the style of game everyone wants to play is important enough that it should really be the norm. So many problems in TRPGs could be mitigated if this conversation happened and then character creation took place together.

No, I've just been arguing that statements about ability to destroy the campaign have no place in any measure of a character, including the tier system.

As in... game breaking characters shouldn't be included in a Tier or we should pretend they don't exist?

[Quertus]

But isn't that what tier 1 (and tier 2 to a lesser extent) means in the tier system?

If you want to talk about tier 1 characters in a different context: What exactly is that context? What are your tiers? What is a tier 2? 3?

Perhaps I have simply misunderstood the tier system, but, my understanding is, even if you remove all the "world-breaking" spells, a Wizard is still Tier 1, by virtue of a combination of power and versatility.

On Cripples: I think it is a matter of tone and balance as well.

Well, as I've said many times, I'm a proponent of the largest possible range of capabilities in a game. Balance =/= fun.

Tone... Sure. But who sets that? IMO, unless agreed upon beforehand, the answer to that question, just like with what the story is, is up to everyone to create with what they have.

As someone already said, it doesn't affect the characters. But it will play hell with the GMs job unless this crippled orphan is at least somewhat as skilled as Hercules is strong. I'm not asking for percect balance (What exactly does it even mean to be as good at talking to people as Herculese is strong? But trying is prefered). We're all here to play a game. If Herculese is the only one who actually has to engage with the rules because the crippled orphan doesn't do anything that engages the "game" part of the RPG, there's something wonky going on that NEEDS to have been agreed to beforehand to avoid causing displeasure from/between the two parties

Honestly, having a discussion that gets to a consensus on the style of game everyone wants to play is important enough that it should really be the norm. So many problems in TRPGs could be mitigated if this conversation happened and then character creation took place together.

I'm biased, as I can never seem to get my groups to want to talk about the game. So, while I may agree in theory, in practice, it doesn't happen. So, understand that that's where I'm coming from.

Now, Armus, for example, nominally engaged the rules. But he was horrible compared to the rest of the party from a statistical standpoint.

What he did, however, was make brilliant tactical choices. And brilliant deceptions, like consistently moving to protect someone who was more durable than himself.

Despite being a liability on paper, Armus was many times over the MVP - and that's even before you consider his out of combat contribution.

But, because he always seemed terrible, no one ever felt that Armus was overshadowing them in combat.

As in... game breaking characters shouldn't be included in a Tier or we should pretend they don't exist?

As in, neither how well role-played the character is, nor how tall or is, nor how much 3rd party material it requires, nor how many ways it breaks the game (literally or figuratively) and "needs to be fixed" should figure into a discussion of the character's relative capacity to contribute meaningfully.

Yes, there are broken things. That's a completely independent conversation. Unless, of course, you're playing a comedic game where breaking the game is a/the way to contribute meaningfully to the game.

[ImNotTrevor]

I'm biased, as I can never seem to get my groups to want to talk about the game. So, while I may agree in theory, in practice, it doesn't happen. So, understand that that's where I'm coming from.

It may be because this runs counter to D&D culture, which has extended its feelers through the hobby with decidedly negative effects. D&D does a very poor job of showing the HOW of the hobby.

Now, Armus, for example, nominally engaged the rules. But he was horrible compared to the rest of the party from a statistical standpoint.

What he did, however, was make brilliant tactical choices. And brilliant deceptions, like consistently moving to protect someone who was more durable than himself.

Despite being a liability on paper, Armus was many times over the MVP - and that's even before you consider his out of combat contribution.

But, because he always seemed terrible, no one ever felt that Armus was overshadowing them in combat.

The thing I find to be worth noting here is that in order to have a wizard be a non-issue, you had to actively try to be useless. And were still useful.

That you can choose to not use an overpowered class in an overpowered way does not make them cease to be such, nor is it an argument that therefore there is no inherent problem with the class. The fact of the matter remains that at any moment beyond a certain level, Armus could just say "screw it" and tear holes in the fabric of reality.

As in, neither how well role-played the character is, nor how tall or is, nor how much 3rd party material it requires, nor how many ways it breaks the game (literally or figuratively) and "needs to be fixed" should figure into a discussion of the character's relative capacity to contribute meaningfully.

Shouldn't the capability of causing major play disruption with a thumbs-up from the rules be a major part of the equation of contribution? If you can instantly make problems go away or instantly revise reality, that's a major contribution. And way broken.

The capacity to be so powerful that the game's rules break down should definitely be part of the equation of whether or not a class is appropriate. (As you say below, unless it's a comedic game... such classes need to be fixed. Quickly.)

Yes, there are broken things. That's a completely independent conversation. Unless, of course, you're playing a comedic game where breaking the game is a/the way to contribute meaningfully to the game.

I don't understand how a class being able to completely break down the rules due to its powerlevel has no bearing on a discussion of its powerlevel.

[Nifft]

As in, neither how well role-played the character is, nor how tall or is, nor how much 3rd party material it requires, nor how many ways it breaks the game (literally or figuratively) and "needs to be fixed" should figure into a discussion of the character's relative capacity to contribute meaningfully.

Yes, there are broken things. That's a completely independent conversation. Unless, of course, you're playing a comedic game where breaking the game is a/the way to contribute meaningfully to the game.

You're claiming that tier 1 is not a problem -- it's literally in the thread's title -- but you feel that the primary characteristic of tier 1 classes ("able to break the game in a variety of ways") is not relevant to this conversation.

I'm not sure how you can hold those two views simultaneously.

[Quertus]

The thing I find to be worth noting here is that in order to have a wizard be a non-issue, you had to actively try to be useless. And were still useful.

That you can choose to not use an overpowered class in an overpowered way does not make them cease to be such, nor is it an argument that therefore there is no inherent problem with the class. The fact of the matter remains that at any moment beyond a certain level, Armus could just say "screw it" and tear holes in the fabric of reality.

I never said Armus was a Wizard...

Ok, I've said many times, "I play wizards", but I've also said that I occasionally play non-wizards so that I know what it's like from the other side, so that I can play wizards better.

Shouldn't the capability of causing major play disruption with a thumbs-up from the rules be a major part of the equation of contribution? If you can instantly make problems go away or instantly revise reality, that's a major contribution. And way broken.

The capacity to be so powerful that the game's rules break down should definitely be part of the equation of whether or not a class is appropriate. (As you say below, unless it's a comedic game... such classes need to be fixed. Quickly.)

I don't understand how a class being able to completely break down the rules due to its powerlevel has no bearing on a discussion of its powerlevel.

If it's broken and needs to be fixed, it's broken and needs to be fixed. So, no, the broken state has no bearing on the character you'll actually be playing, unless you're actually playing that broken character.

If my incorrect bank statement figured into my wealth, I'd be tier 1 financially. Unfortunately, since it was a bug, I'm relegated to a lower tier, with less spending power than a small country. (OK, it wasn't off that much, but the point still stands.)

RAW, the 2e Daern's Instant Fortress deals 10d10 points of dawizard. That is irrelevant to the power is a DIF, if no-one is ever going to rule it that way.

EDIT:

You're claiming that tier 1 is not a problem -- it's literally in the thread's title -- but you feel that the primary characteristic of tier 1 classes ("able to break the game in a variety of ways") is not relevant to this conversation.

I'm not sure how you can hold those two views simultaneously.

Again, maybe I've misunderstood the tier system, but, if you take away all the "broken" abilities, is not a Wizard still Tier 1 by virtue of the combination of power and flexibility? Therefore, isn't it fair to say that "broken" should be fixed before tier is calculated, and talk of broken should be separate from tier discussions?

[Vitruviansquid]

In the JaronK tier system that people tend to use, tier 1 is broken by definition. If you take away the things a Wizard could do to break the game, that class ceases to become Tier 1.

edit:

Since you are against things that are broken, what you really mean in the thread's title is to say is something like,

"Game balance theory: Why I feel Tier 3 is not the problem"