Balance against what? The dice are unbalanced by intent towards success. The idea is for there to be more likelihood of success than equal.

Are you following the actual conversation, or are you just arguing for the sake of argument.

This whole conversation started in talking about one party member wielding a Lightsaber, and someone else wielding a Vibro-axe. The idea of maintaining some kind of balance, being so that players can make something other than a Jedi and still be effective in the game. If the Lightsaber is the most powerful weapon in the game, then everybody is going to want one. And anybody that doesn't have one, is basically at a disadvantage. Which means that most players will feel compelled to only make Jedi, so they aren't sitting back with their Blaster and their Vibro-axe, watching the Jedi slaying enemies left and right.

Yah I am, and it's the whole premise that's absurd. It's an RPG, not a competitive video game of PvP. All weapon and class types aren't meant to be balanced, that's silly video game talk. It isn't a competition among PCs over who has the highest DPS, or it sure as hell shouldn't be.

But all players want to feel useful and want to feel like they are competent at their chosen nitch. Even when PC's aren't directly competing against each other there is a tendency for players to become bored in games where they are always out shown by another player. Combat becomes tricky because people who focus on combat want a chance to show that their chosen form of combat is just as good as the next guys. Thus the Hired Gun with the vibro axe wants to make sure he is just as good at combat as the Jedi with the lightsabre. But if the Jedi is always taking down all the opponents before you get a chance you're going to start feeling left out. Thus weapons and combat abilities need to be "balanced" so that all choices are equally valid choices and it comes down to an issue of style. If the lightsabre and vibro axe do the same general damage and both are valid ways to approaching a fight both sets of players will be happy. More often than not if one is determined to be far superior the inferior choices will cause a player to lose interest.

Ultimately everyone wants to be good at what they set out to do. Balance in this sense implies that all things being equal each player will have an equal chance of shinning.

This has nothing to do with video games. I don't know why people always want to blame video games as if they suddenly made this hobby bad. Peoples taste evolve over time. The hobby changes. What was important when the hobby was created in the 70's gave way to different ideas of whats important in the 90's which is now giving way to different sets of ideas. But the basic premise behind why balance is important has more to do with how humans interact and gain fun and satisfaction and less to do with video games. You see similar issues crop up in sports when one player obviously overshadows the entire team. If that situation isn't handled carefully people will lose interest in playing said sport (lets say basketball) and participation will dwindle. Balance in this instance is more about management of how the star player interacts with the team with also giving the other members of the team ways to feel like the are overall contributing to the effort. The end goal is for the team to win, but when one person does it you can witness a drop in interest and perceived fun.

Same thing can happen at the gaming table when the Jedi is obviously the best combat character there is. Or are video games to blame for why this occurs in team sports? Though to be honest you can witness this in any team activity (of which gaming technically is).

TLDR: Video games are not the problem here, human interaction is.

So game designers should design games in a way that soothes people's irrational lack of self worth brought on by their make believe character's inadequacies weighed against other's performance with a completely different weapon in the game? Sorry, not buying it.

People could just grow up, play their own PC, and not worry about the other guy. It's so preschool. This isn't a game design issue because there's no way to address jealousy. As soon as the Vibro Axe vs Lightsaber tantrum is resolved it becomes the next thing with that mentality, they aren't good at another item or task as someone else is, etc ad nauseum. It doesn't end with that mentality catered to.

The weapons are two different weapons, requiring two different character advancement schemes, and both have strength and weaknesses. I don't want them balanced. I want them different. I want variety.

"I hope the designers balanced being able to dig a foxhole with a soup spoon v. a shovel"

If a designer is so worried about balance then they would only provide one career, one species, one specialization, one type of weapon, and one type of armor. There all characters are equal and balanced. Of course, they're also bland and boring to play.

So game designers should design games in a way that soothes people's irrational lack of self worth brought on by their make believe character's inadequacies weighed against other's performance with a completely different weapon in the game? Sorry, not buying it.

All products to varying extents are designed around peoples irrational fears. We're irrational creatures.

People could just grow up, play their own PC, and not worry about the other guy. It's so preschool. This isn't a game design issue because there's no way to address jealousy. As soon as the Vibro Axe vs Lightsaber tantrum is resolved it becomes the next thing with that mentality, they aren't good at another item or task as someone else is, etc ad nauseum. It doesn't end with that mentality catered to.

Actually there is a way to address jealousy. You don't make any one thing amazeoballs. You give equipment and abilities that are different but can all lead to the same general result so that people can make what they feel are meaningful choices about their characters and not made to feel like playing out a choice makes them less effecting. In the realm of the vibro axe vs the lightsabre the goal isn't to make them the same, but to make it viable for both to be reasonable options. Both are given pro's and con's so that a player can carefully weigh the decision and feel confident that they didn't make a bad choice.

Telling people to "just grow up" and "this isn't preschool" pretty much ignores some very enlightening things that we know about what humans want out of group activities. It is in no way helpful to actually solving problems, but more importantly keeping the hobby vibrant and successful.

Like it or not, the consumer base as a whole, wants balance. There are many ways to achieve balance (or in the very least the illusion of balance) but to survive in the current gaming era game publishers must pay attention to the qualities that players claim they want.

One of the biggest complaints against Star Wars for many years (and it was one in which many GM's I knew over the years listed as the reason why they hated running the game) was the way in which Force users and non Force users weren't balanced. Thus creating a sub par experience for non Forcing using people and ending in some groups opting out of the Star Wars experience. One of the highlights that a lot of people list in favor of why people should play FFG vision of Star Wars is that it decently balances Force users and non Force users. This balance is an overall good thing as it keeps the game healthy and people invested in buying it. Which in turns keeps us happy with new products.

The weapons are two different weapons, requiring two different character advancement schemes, and both have strength and weaknesses. I don't want them balanced. I want them different. I want variety.

You can have both balance and different. They are not mutually exclusive game traits.

If a designer is so worried about balance then they would only provide one career, one species, one specialization, one type of weapon, and one type of armor. There all characters are equal and balanced. Of course, they're also bland and boring to play.

You can also have balance and variety of choices. Again ..... not mutually exclusive. Balance does not equal bland and boring to play. You can include a great amount of diversity in a well balanced game. Several games have proven that balance does not have to mean dull and boring. This game does a good job of proving that point. 5th Edition D&D is another game that is selling amazingly well and includes a lot of balance between classes that people find enjoyable.

Assuming catering to jealousy is something anyone should aspire to, ever. Personally I'd just as soon not waste my time. Given the game is the way it is, I am thinking so do the devs, and given the books go to reprint almost as quick as they're released I'd say the majority of the customers are fine with it as well.

@Kael: As a game designer, I know that to achieve true balance it is what I've said. To give the illusion of balance is what you've said. The illusion, by default, acknowledges that there cannot be balance when you add in more variables. The more variables you add the more unbalanced the system becomes. For true balance to be there, you have to remove choice and variety to limit the amount of variables needed to compute balance.

Also, 5E D&D isn't balanced since the base system has never been balanced to begin with. There are still problems with magic users dominating the higher levels that leave non-magic users in the dust. This is why D20 version of Star Wars had the problems with Jedi. I, also, wouldn't use the popular is better fallacy because McDonald's sells billions of burgers in a year and are absolute crap.

Outside of WEG Star Wars, the only Star Wars system to be balanced in regards to Force Users and Non-Force Users is FFG's system. WEG Star Wars broke down at high dice pool for all templates, so it was balanced between the two groups.

Assuming catering to jealousy is something anyone should aspire to, ever. Personally I'd just as soon not waste my time. Given the game is the way it is, I am thinking so do the devs, and given the books go to reprint almost as quick as they're released I'd say the majority of the customers are fine with it as well.

It's not jealousy they are catering too. And mischartizing it as jealousy to make your point doesn't do anyone any real favors in discussing the issue. The components in play are slightly more complicated than jealousy. People want to feel like their choices are valid. That they can contribute in a meaningful way. That involves deeper thought processes than jealousy.

And given the way the game is ..... and the fact that most people say the game is balanced I do think the devs have given it a lot of time and thought. You don't accidentally end up at a "balanced" game. You have to carefully design a game in order for it to feel balanced to it's consumers and the long development life of this game indicates that they took the issue of game balance very seriously. The fact that it sells well and there are frequent reprints for a game that many on this forum have said is balanced indicates that for the most part ..... FFG has succeeded in "catering to peoples jealousy"

You're right the majority of customers are fine with the game as is. But what is equally correct is that the majority of the feedback in this thread (and many others) is that in terms of balance this game does it pretty well. For the most part I don't see to many cries of this game being unbalanced and that it needs to be changed.

@Kael: As a game designer, I know that to achieve true balance it is what I've said. To give the illusion of balance is what you've said. The illusion, by default, acknowledges that there cannot be balance when you add in more variables. The more variables you add the more unbalanced the system becomes. For true balance to be there, you have to remove choice and variety to limit the amount of variables needed to compute balance.

Well to be fair .... no one wants "true" balance when they game. Most gamers are smart enough to know that a game can never be 100% balanced. Thus the call for balance is never about obtaining 100% true balance. And since the goal is rarely true balance you can insert a lot of variety into a game and still achieve balance. But there is no denying, balance is an important reason why people buy games these days. It's one trait that gets talked about in most reviews of games. Most people seem to accept varying levels of balanced though, but they still want it to feel balanced.

You can mix variety and balance. You can provide player choice and player options and still achieve balance. These are not mutually exclusive goals.

Also I never said popular is better.However the feedback for 5th Edition was that it was a better balanced game (again most people when speaking of balance are not trying to achieve "true" balance) and that it was selling well which indicates people overall are happy with the game.

Let me illustrate the intent of the OP's question:

I come to game night, after being told how awesome a certain system is, and I'm really keen on playing some kind of tech or mechanic character, and I'm delighted to find there are multiple options that cater to the type. But then the GM and the other veteran players tell me that everything about those options - the skill set up, the abilities, the rules about how their abilities were written, everything - are just hilariously bad, and barely function on a dry test, let alone in actual play. If I really want to be a good tech, I should take this career over here, which has a few abilities that really make it excellent in almost any scenario, and it's a career that makes me scratch my head at why it's so much a better technician than the actual technician.

So I'm left with two options: either I stay true to my character, but fail at everything I wanted and should have been able to do, not actually contributing to or getting anything out of the game, while the other players did those things I should have been good at and succeeded brilliantly, or I make some bastardized chimera of a character that does those those things well, but I really didn't want to play the character type. Either way, I'll probably leave with a bad taste in my mouth, not want to play again, and have a low opinion of the system, the developers of the system, and the company behind it.

So there's the question: are Engineers and Colonists and Hired Guns and Aces capable of performing as advertised, or does the Jedi variant of those careers outshine them because they have space magic and laser swords?

People want the illusion of balance, so they have to grow up and acknowledge that nothing will be balanced in a game. This does not mean that they cannot be the best in their choice of career or spec over other careers and specs. Some specs are good at fighting and some are good at repairs. That is the balance that a game should try to achieve and most fail in this department.

5th Edition D&D is about as balanced as my deceased father being alive. The entirety of the system is unbalanced and will remain so due to the choices of the designers to adhere to ODD's initial design. Saying it's better balanced is like saying that a half flat tire is still full and better than a fully flat tire. No, you may not have intentionally used a fallacy, but you did. I merely pointed out that you did use the "popular is always better" fallacy.

I want to point out that every iteration of D&D has outsold every other game on the market. The reason is that they are the granddaddy of all the RPGs and were to the market first. They also had word of mouth and large advertising budgets in comparison to other game publishers. I wouldn't use them as a gauge on what is balanced or not.

So there's the question: are Engineers and Colonists and Hired Guns and Aces capable of performing as advertised, or does the Jedi variant of those careers outshine them because they have space magic and laser swords?

They are every bit as capable as their respective players and GMs are imaginative and interested in having the resulting game be “balanced”.

If the GM refuses to let anything but Jedi shine, then only Jedi will shine.

If the players refuse to let Heavies shine, then Heavies won’t shine.

This has to be a cooperative process, with appropriately balanced inputs from everyone at the table.

The game system itself is just the starting line, and in that respect I have found that FFG’s SWRPG is as balanced or more so than any other game I’ve seen.

But what you do with it once you leave the starting line, well that’s all up to you and the others around you.

So there's the question: are Engineers and Colonists and Hired Guns and Aces capable of performing as advertised, or does the Jedi variant of those careers outshine them because they have space magic and laser swords?

They are every bit as capable as their respective players and GMs are imaginative and interested in having the resulting game be “balanced”.

If the GM refuses to let anything but Jedi shine, then only Jedi will shine.

If the players refuse to let Heavies shine, then Heavies won’t shine.

This has to be a cooperative process, with appropriately balanced inputs from everyone at the table.

The game system itself is just the starting line, and in that respect I have found that FFG’s SWRPG is as balanced or more so than any other game I’ve seen.

But what you do with it once you leave the starting line, well that’s all up to you and the others around you.

I was just illustrating the question. No offhand examples, but some have supposed 'options' that are just poorly designed, or don't work as advertised, so players who pick it are more just shooting themselves in the foot, where even a cooperative and understanding group doesn't fix the problem, because they start at the core.

I was just illustrating the question.

Understood.

No offhand examples, but some have supposed 'options' that are just poorly designed, or don't work as advertised, so players who pick it are more just shooting themselves in the foot, where even a cooperative and understanding group doesn't fix the problem, because they start at the core.

There are flaws in everything. Nothing is perfect.

That said, when you take the FFG SWRPG as your starting point, I have found that it is less imperfect than any other game that I have played.

IMO, YMMV, etc….

Every game should have a sense of balance. Trying too hard gives us things like D&D 4e, which a lot of people didn't like. But at the same time, nobody wants to spend ten sessions with a PC only to be outshined in every respect by the glowstick swingers.

So is the game balanced? Pretty well, yes. Your heavy gunner, your vibro-axe dude, your Jedi and your Force wizard will all be able to wreck bad guys pretty handily. Your doctor and diplomat will need to hit the deck when the blaster bolts start flying, but they can pull off other tricks that keep the fight from happening in the first place. It's perfectly possible to build a crappy character, but if you're clear with yourself about what you want your character to be doing, you can build that guy and have him be amazing at it. You do want to get a feel from the GM about what kind of game he's running. If he's just doing a planet-to-planet dungeon crawl, you might want to just build a Marauder, give him a point of Charm, and call that a Diplomat.

So there's the question: are Engineers and Colonists and Hired Guns and Aces capable of performing as advertised, or does the Jedi variant of those careers outshine them because they have space magic and laser swords?

Just MHO, but I think they are fully capable of performing as advertised. There are plenty of ways for muggles to shine that aren't available as easily to the F&D careers. I don't think any of the Force using careers (so far) have the full "Inspiring Rhetoric" tree, for example.

If the Lightsaber is the most powerful weapon in the game, then everybody is going to want one.

You aren't "everybody", best not to try and speak for them.

I wasn't asking because I don't know. I was illustrating my point with a rhetorical question. OP asked if the game is balanced, or, like, "does this game work?", and some seem to react as if the very question is sacrilege or something.

It's like me asking if the tires on a car are properly countered and balanced, and the car salesman lectures that it's not like I'm going drag racing, so what does it matter? I'm not competing against anybody. But that doesn't answer my question, because all I wanted to know is if my car is operating correctly.

There is only one thing that can bring balance. A Galaxy Master, the finale arbiter and adjudicator.

People want the illusion of balance, so they have to grow up and acknowledge that nothing will be balanced in a game. This does not mean that they cannot be the best in their choice of career or spec over other careers and specs. Some specs are good at fighting and some are good at repairs. That is the balance that a game should try to achieve and most fail in this department.

People want balance, just like they want safety and honesty. We all understand that nothing is ever 100% or "true". Doesn't mean that we can't strive to get as close to it as possible.

5th Edition D&D is about as balanced as my deceased father being alive. The entirety of the system is unbalanced and will remain so due to the choices of the designers to adhere to ODD's initial design. Saying it's better balanced is like saying that a half flat tire is still full and better than a fully flat tire. No, you may not have intentionally used a fallacy, but you did. I merely pointed out that you did use the "popular is always better" fallacy.

I'm not honestly invested in debating you on if D&D is really balanced. Overall people want balance and overall people seem to be satisfied with the level of balanced delivered by D&D. If you say it's not balanced then so be it. I honestly don't care. I'm not buying D&D. I'm just pointing out a game can be called balanced (and lets not pretend it isn't called balanced by many people who review it) and still have fun and variety. Just like people call this edition of Star Wars balanced and it has a lot of fun and variety. Your original assertion that to achieve balance you have to make one class with very few choices just simply isn't true based on the fact that no one is seeking "true" 100% balance.

Honestly I'm not going to debate a pedantic definition of balance just because you want to adhere to a purist definition when clearly most people don't.

If the Lightsaber is the most powerful weapon in the game, then everybody is going to want one.

You aren't "everybody", best not to try and speak for them.

Agreed. And the lightsaber people have not taken a serious look at the autofire capability and everything can go along with it.

There are numerous times when those wielding a glow stick should fear the person who is treading softly and carrying a really big gun.

If the Lightsaber is the most powerful weapon in the game, then everybody is going to want one.

You aren't "everybody", best not to try and speak for them.

Agreed. And the lightsaber people have not taken a serious look at the autofire capability and everything can go along with it.

There are numerous times when those wielding a glow stick should fear the person who is treading softly and carrying a really big gun.

^ THIS ^

Only one of my players wanted a lightsaber, and I don't think it was a power thing. It is a good weapon but is very dangerous and risky to have and be caught with, so it isn't all good. And as I said, many players don't care about combat skills at all and the one with the most XP in my game dosen't have any combat skills or talents. Some games are about combat and power balanse, not this one:)

The only thing a F&D character can do better is heal. It makes an extremely one dimensional character, but the Heal power when combined with a high intellect and Medicine will out heal any other profession.

They make terrible diplomats right now just due to the lack of a good Face tree. No Influence does not make up for it, because of the dark side pips showing up and completely eliminating your ability to properly talk your way out.

In terms of combat Shooty and melee Edge characters are for the most part better due to having better talents for such work and the fact that Edge characters can make better use of xp.

Tanking is fairly even with a slight edge going to F&D with the armorer and believe it or not War Leader.

Stealth would go to F&D except for well umm the whole droids problem as in the best stealth abilities pretty much don't work on them.

Knowledge dude and Thief are solidly in the Edge's favor, because the talents are a bit lacking without going into other trees.

Slicing is solidly in Edge's Favor, but Nobody breaks Codes and encryption better then a Shadow.

Mechanics is a toss up as the EOTE has some really sweet talents, but F&D has a few unique ones as well.

As more career books come out we may see a tipping of the scales, but due to the xp sink nature of Force and Destiny characters other then healing its extremely difficult to get a solid outshines a well built EOTE toon.

If the Lightsaber is the most powerful weapon in the game, then everybody is going to want one.

You aren't "everybody", best not to try and speak for them.

Yup, my character doesn't even carry a weapon. He lingers in the back or runs away from danger and shouts directions and the weak points of enemies through a collar amp while flipping through field manuals, datapads and xeno guides.

Gotta love those Analysts...

I have a character who has no weapons, he has climbing gear. No ascension pistol just climbing gear:(

So far he has hog tied an Acklay, politely asked an Inquisitor to rethink his life choices and eventually took him out with a squad of battle droids, played spiderman vrs hobgoblin on his glider with his climbing gear (which included anchoring the rope to a tree after tying the other end to the bounty hunter's leg and riding on the back of the jetpack like a cowboy), steals people's weapons with skullduggary in the middle of combat, sneaks around and finds really bad ways to use common household items to fight people without actually hurting anyone.

I have a character who has no weapons, he has climbing gear. No ascension pistol just climbing gear:(

So far he has hog tied an Acklay, politely asked an Inquisitor to rethink his life choices and eventually took him out with a squad of battle droids, played spiderman vrs hobgoblin on his glider with his climbing gear (which included anchoring the rope to a tree after tying the other end to the bounty hunter's leg and riding on the back of the jetpack like a cowboy), steals people's weapons with skullduggary in the middle of combat, sneaks around and finds really bad ways to use common household items to fight people without actually hurting anyone.

Does he begin each session by saying, "My name is Michael Westin..."?