Editorial Josh Sawyer Explains: How to Balance an RPG

[Zorba the Hutt]

Not sure why every character has to be good at combat, in any party-based game really but particularly in a game with non-combat options for every quest? I thought that was one of the reasons behind the change from combat xp and the increased emphasis on stealth and conversation systems. And Josh implied that characters weaker in some ways would be "rewarded" within the "conversations and the fiction of the world":

If someone wants to make a brilliant, weakling fighter, that is a build that is viable in our game, and it’s rewarded within the conversations and the fiction of the world. That’s not something that’s really true of playing Dungeons & Dragons.

 

[Athelas]

Uhm, he's saying the opposite: it's a build that's viable (in combat) AND 'rewarded' with intelligent dialogue options.

Non-combat options generally work better in single character RPG's where you're forced to make choices about what skills to prioritize.

 

[Shadenuat]

If anyone would have a say about druids in BG2 again I would start translating my solo-druid BG trilogy guide on engRish. Don't make me tell how I blinded dragons with Nature's Beauty for 8 hours.

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

Uhm, he's saying the opposite: it's a build that's viable (in combat) AND 'rewarded' with intelligent dialogue options.

OK, maybe I misinterpeted but I assumed that a build "rewarded" in the conversation system would be less good in other areas than builds that weren't rewarded as much in conversations?

Anyway, a minor point so not probably worth another major debate.

 

[Athelas]

OK, maybe I misinterpeted but I assumed that a build "rewarded" in the conversation system would be less good in other areas than builds that weren't rewarded as much in conversations?

Anyway, a minor point so not probably worth another major debate.

I believe the goal is to reward every stat with the dialogue systems - i.e. a high Miight 'brute' will have access to intimidating/aggressive responses.

Constitution will be tricky of course , though it looks like a lot of the scripted interactions will involve feats of endurance.

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

Why? I don't understand this need in a single player party based RPG... are your little digital bro's going to be butthurt? You as a player already have something to do all the time, you are managing your party as an entire entity, why the need for each part of that entity to do something all the time?

In war artillery does not having something to do all the time, yet it is a valuable and powerful factor when its time to shine occurs...If somebody designed a WW II game with the same philosophy as in PoE, it would lower the combined arms tactical component of combat synergy; it would essentially degrade total tactical choice-- and I think it does the exact same thing in a RPG. It homogenizes choice and results in order to achieve 'balance'; something that would only make sense to strive for in a game where each person were controlling an individual (and even then I think it is not the optimal design decision, I think it still degrades tactical interactions).

I don't think you paid attention to

All my Icewind Dale characters were good in combat. I never took companions in BG2 or made a single character who would be bad in combat.

Did anyone ever take Cernd in BG2? The consensus is that he's a worthless character in every way. That's not anything to intentionally strive for.

Why do I care what you did icewind dale? I ignored it because what you specifically did is fairly meaningless in the context of how combat is designed.

Power gamers don't take certain characters or use certain builds, we all know this... they also don't really like RPG's IMO. I hated playing D&D with people who can't get beyond always and only doing what is specifically the most efficient build or action at every juncture. But because these degenerate OCD compulsives play RPG's that are designed to be enjoyed for their variety instead of like a competitive game of DOTA, should not mean every choice must be increased or decreased so that they are basically equal.

Just because all choices are made to be viable does not mean the choices are more interesting or fun. Quite the contrary, they become more meaningless instead.

You know why soccer is tactically simple and fairly boring compared to American football? For the same reason balancing design choices are more boring than asymmetrical powers and classes. Each play and each person on a football team is specifically trained from a skill and physical perspective to perform specialized tasks. This makes the game incredibly tactical.

The Offensive linemen doe not cry about not being able to play defense or carry or catch the ball,--they have a very specific and limited, but incredibly important task to perform. Additionally gridiron football has many more very specific rules about who can perform what action or where they can perform these actions to the point that you can legally touch players or not depending on what play is being run and also where the ball is on the field and even which direction a player is facing. Who can and can't touch the ball, where they line up, when they can or can't move are all painstakingly detailed. All these very specific rules and restrictions create a more tactical and interesting game than if the restrictions were lifted and positions and plays homogenized.

Same exact thing applies to RPG's; which is why clerics not being able to use edged weapons, or other such class restrictions and limitations does not actually restrict choice, but somewhat counter intuitively increases the amount of interesting and fun tactical situations.... especially when combined with party based game play. I really think some people have the situation completely backwards.

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

I believe the goal is to reward every stat with the dialogue systems - i.e. a high Miight brutish personality will have access to intimidating responses.

Con will be tricky of course , though it looks a lot of the scripted interactions will involve feats of endurance.

Ah, ok, knew they were going to make more use of checks in conversations but was not aware they wanted to make relatively equal use of all the stats. As you say, looking forward to seeing how they use a couple of those in conversation then.

 

[Infinitron]

You know why soccer is tactically simple and fairly boring compared to American football?

Hooooo boy.

(Needless to say, Josh Sawyer is a soccer fan.)

 

[felipepepe]

You know why soccer is tactically simple and fairly boring compared to American football?

I think it's time for you to leave the thread and think about what you're saying.

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

You know why soccer is tactically simple and fairly boring compared to American football?

Hooooo boy.

(Needless to say, Josh Sawyer is a soccer fan. )

Well people may like it, but soccer is incredibly and tactfully simple compared to american football. I am not sure any other sport is as tactfully complex as football. Many people love soccer for the same reason they like apple design philosophies; it is elegant and simple and many people find that beautiful. There is nothing wrong with it, but it is much less tactical.

 

[Athelas]

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

for fucks sake, should have known. Board infested by euro's and Nerds still traumatized by HS football players.

 

[Shannow]

I'm not sure why so many people assume "Fighters with low strength aren't shit characters" also means "Your low strength fighter can can wade into melee combat naked and unarmed and win".

Quotes or you are building a strawman (once again).

Also the Xulima aricle is quite interesting in this discussion, because it shows where balance is actually more important (compared to Sawyer's focus on combat+stats for classes).

 

[Shannow]

for fucks sake, should have known. Board infested by euro's and Nerds still traumatized by HS football players.

Whatever that even means.
Our problem is not so much with your claims concerning tactics. You're simply very uninformed. Easily forgiven. It has more to do with you calling football "soccer" and American handegg "American football".

/Threat derail

 

[Onholyservicebound]

Fucking pathetic generation of fagots and failures, ruining everything they come in contact with. They hate complicated rule based RPGS, but like fagot elves and faeries and romancing store keepers and gnomes, so they ruin RPG's for the rest of us... Get your skinny jeans on and go to your cuddle party faggots...lol

and Nerds still traumatized by HS football players.

You can tell this guy was popular in high school, probably the only reason he's even spending time on the 'dex is because he needs to take a break from lugging around his massive testicles.

 

[SymbolicFrank]

In war artillery does not having something to do all the time, yet it is a valuable and powerful factor when its time to shine occurs...If somebody designed a WW II game with the same philosophy as in PoE, it would lower the combined arms tactical component of combat synergy; it would essentially degrade total tactical choice-- and I think it does the exact same thing in a RPG. It homogenizes choice and results in order to achieve 'balance'; something that would only make sense to strive for in a game where each person were controlling an individual (and even then I think it is not the optimal design decision, I think it still degrades tactical interactions).

Yes, that artillery would have the same DPS as any other soldier.

 

[SymbolicFrank]

To recap:

Power gamers min/max, which requires meta-gaming (prior knowledge). Instant death or hard counters are part of that and encourage reloading. That's all BAD and unbalanced.

Furthermore, everyone should get effective equipment at the start and if you specialize in that equipment it should be able to take you to the end game. Unique and overpowered items and choices are BAD and unbalanced.

The solution to this is to limit all choices to flavor, standardize the DPS and make sure there's always a good dialog choice.


That also nicely fits into the game engine. Because the rules are hard-coded.

"Eh, stop. You made that last part up, right? With Obsidian designing an IP and a game engine and all, they wouldn't do something like that! Surely they understand the need for the engine to be very flexible, so the designers can create the crazy stuff they think of. And think about modding! They definitely won't try to make it into a one-size-fits-all mold. It's self-defeating."

 

[Ninjerk]

You know why soccer is tactically simple and fairly boring compared to American football?

I think it's time for you to leave the thread and think about what you're saying.

Maybe you should read his post.

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

for fucks sake, should have known. Board infested by euro's and Nerds still traumatized by HS football players.

Whatever that even means.
Our problem is not so much with your claims concerning tactics. You're simply very uninformed. Easily forgiven. It has more to do with you calling football "soccer" and American handegg "American football".

/Threat derail

I could have and probably should have worded it a bit differently, because iit sounds too much like I am calling soccer names. What I am trying to get at is as a tactical simulation football has many more choices and decisions to be made due to its discrete play structure (its basically turn based combat in many respects) and because the complicated rules of engagement and many many restrictions. To me the direct comparison to RPG combat is pretty stark, and the increased rules, more restrictions and complicated specialization of players/classes makes for more varied and interesting tactical choices, at least for the person standing on the sideline and making strategies (akin to a person playing a RPG on the computer).. Football IMO would be a more fun and deeper game to play as a CRPG or tactical simulation.

This does not mean soccer might not be enjoyable to watch and/or play or that it is not interesting or that it is completely devoid of tactics. I do know too, I have played soccer at a high level, in fact was on a travel team and we toured Europe and south america, so I know the game.

 

[Jasede]

Not to fuel any fires but I think soccer and football are really different and hard to compare. They're both tactical and interesting, but in dramatically different ways.

It's like trying to compare a real-time game to a game that's real-time with pause. They're both very different systems, but hopefully we can all agree that both European football (soccer) and American football are very interesting, if vastly different, sports.

 

[Roguey]

All sports are garbage imho.

 

[Copper]

?

 

[mondblut]

Since when "doesn't need items" is a virtue? Next you'll say, "doesn't need to do quests to gain xp" is a good thing.

Loot is part of the content, and upgrading it is a crucial part of gameplay. Characters that don't need it by design are worthless.

 

[Harold]

Should've pegged mondblut for a monk hater.

 

[Crichton]

You know why soccer is tactically simple and fairly boring compared to American football?

Hooooo boy.

(Needless to say, Josh Sawyer is a soccer fan.)

Makes perfect sense; the man who can't design a tactical game watches a sport where the coach is a mere spectator.

On topic: I'm unaware of any balanced RPGs. There are two obvious reasons for this.

1) If you were to calculate the amount of time it takes to playtest and balance a set of rules (for any game, RPG or otherwise), it would work out to months per page of rules. RPG rulesets are complicated by necessity; D&D has over a hundred pages of rules now matter how you calculate them. By the time anyone has a clue about how everything fits together it doesn't matter because they've already released another splatbook/errata/entire edition of the rules. I think that by and large, cRPGs are better off adapting pen-and-paper rulesets because at least then they benefit from some of that playtesting/feedback but it's just a matter of degree. The end result will have irregularities regardless.

2) Any balance between strategic options has to try to account for situational availabilities. And this really causes havoc when those options are as long term as a character's choice of career. Of course no one would choose to use a bow over an axe if everything was shrouded in fog. But in an RPG this means that to decide between pointing weapon proficiency points in axes or bows, one must account for the average level of visibility for the remainder of the game. Rogues aren't completely useless in D&D 3.5, but they are in the NWN2 OC where the majority of the difficult encounters are composed of undead.

Even with a "balanced" ruleset, the game is only balanced if the situations in it favor the various options equally. (i.e. don't put points into riding in Blade of Destiny) How can any scenario avoid favoring some character development options over others?

Edit: Typo (and probably more that I didn't catch)