Editorial Josh Sawyer Explains: How to Balance an RPG

[Rake]

It offered better protection, sure, but it wasn't that much better than the chainmail and so in terms of cost efficiency.

Sure, and the classic trope is that Padded or Leather Armor is cheap, and found in the early game, while Plate is expensive, and in many games for some reason only found in the late game. Like in Diablo.

However, I thought that kind of MMO-esque tier-based design was frowned upon here. In a more realistic fantasy roleplaying world, there's no reason why you couldn't steal a suit of plate off of the first village blacksmith you run into, thereby bypassing leather entirely.

If you had the skills to pull it of, then good for you?

 

[Pope Amole II]

However, I thought that kind of MMO-esque tier-based design was frowned upon here. And in a more realistic fantasy roleplaying world, there's no reason why you couldn't steal a suit of plate off of the first village blacksmith you run into, thereby bypassing leather entirely.

That's an interesting definition of realism. First, best thing you can steal from your first village blacksmith is a horseshoe or a saw or some nails - he would have neither skills nor equipment nor manpower to craft a suit of plate armor. Second, you can't "steal" a suit of plate - it's too huge, noisy and noticeable. Even if you'd manage to steal it from him ninja-style (very realistic), the question arises where the fuck have you got that shiny armor you're wearing, son? You'd have to rob him which would've put you in a problem with law not only in the village, but in the whole region (with time). And problems with law usually mean bad business for you. In the realistic setting, that is. So yeah.

 

[Rake]

It offered better protection, sure, but it wasn't that much better than the chainmail and so in terms of cost efficiency.

Sure, and the classic trope is that Padded or Leather Armor is cheap, and found in the early game, while Plate is expensive, and in many games for some reason only found in the late game. Like in Diablo.

However, I thought that kind of MMO-esque tier-based design was frowned upon here. In a more realistic fantasy roleplaying world, there's no reason why you couldn't steal a suit of plate off of the first village blacksmith you run into, thereby bypassing leather entirely.

If you had the skills to pull it of, then good for you?

OK then, so enjoy your party of six homogenous looking plated dudes with no mechanical reason to switch to something else

I will. The way Power Armor worked in the First 2 Fallouts was much better than in New Vegas. And if the game allows you to steal SIX full plates from the blacksmith in Level 1 village, the flaw isn't with the system, is with the area design.

 

[Delterius]

But D&D is hardly balanced for only one option because attributes aren't a tool of character customization. Classes are. What Sawyer did was try and turn attributes into an interesting choice on top of a very extended class system. If anything, was an attribute system in which each value works differently for each class -- though I suppose that would only be realistic from a development pov if there was a smaller number of classes.

 

[Copper]

Blame the designer, not the concept. Personally, I have no problem with armour advancement being part of character progression, Fallout-style. (What Rake said)

 

[Infinitron]

That's an interesting definition of realism.

Yes, it is. But do you have anything useful to say about fantasy RPGs, or are you only interested in sophism and showing off your history education?

Again, fucking simplistic tier-based itemization. While to a certain extent unavoidable, this is not a good thing.

Blame the designer, not the concept. Personally, I have no problem with armour advancement being part of character progression, Fallout-style. (What Rake said)

And you know, in a single-character RPG with generally sparse itemization, where armor acquisition is a significant factor in your sense of narrative progression and character growth, that is almost acceptable.

In a party-based RPG set in a rich, diverse setting, and meant to encompass a variety of roles, it's just not good enough.

 

[Pope Amole II]

Yes, it is. But do you have anything useful to say about fantasy RPGs, or are you only interested in sophism and showing off your history education?

Again, fucking simplistic tier-based itemization. While to a certain extent unavoidable, this is not a good thing.

Oh, I've said aplenty, but you kinda refuse to either listen or understand. To put it extremely shortly, simplistic tier-based itemization can be still made rich & diverse with outside factors. Like, as I've said, economical ones. In some online games (like diablo) it's already present in terms of repair tax (so at times combat can be so costly that it's not worth the reward of the combat) and, in a more interesting manner, it can be used as a good management mechanics. Actually, it's already used that way in many roguelikes, but more with stuff like scrolls & potions. Still, considering that actual weapons & armor break down relatively quickly and are not that easy to repair (depending on the character of the damage - maybe even impossible), they can easily be viewed and threated as disposablle, as consumables. So it's the dilemma of "do I waste my full plate here or do I wait a little bit longer?"

But that's only part of the stuff I'm talking. There can be economical consequences for wearing armor, societal or cultural or religious consequences (was already done in Morrowind - good luck wearing the ordinator armor), there can be environmental consequences (metal is not so cool to wear when it's hot, also, while "heavy" armors don't slow you that much in combat, they can be impossible when on the track, especially since in the RPGs you rarely use horses), there can be supernatural ones (metal-attracting magnetic anomalies, ghosts being repelled by silver which is otherwise shit-tier armour material) and so on. Lots of either managerial or exploration-based approaches.

 

[Infinitron]

You could have just said "no".

 

[Copper]

I wish I was as cool as you.

 

[Roguey]

I will. The way Power Armor worked in the First 2 Fallouts was much better than in New Vegas.

"Ah yes I like how every character regardless of their initial character concept winds up with hardened or advanced power armor and how this makes you invincible to virtually everything except unlucky crits that are just as likely to one-shot you at full health even with 10 endurance, this is good,"--what grognards actually believe

 

[Mastermind]

I will. The way Power Armor worked in the First 2 Fallouts was much better than in New Vegas.

"Ah yes I like how every character regardless of their initial character concept winds up with hardened or advanced power armor and how this makes you invincible to virtually everything except unlucky crits that are just as likely to one-shot you at full health even with 10 endurance, this is good,"--what grognards actually believe

I don't see the problem with that, except maybe that it shouldn't allow critical hits through either.

 

[UnknownBro]

Josh Sawyer Explains His Obsessive Compulsive Disorder And How To Deal With It Through Design

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Sorry but what's the problem? Getting rid of trash options is a good thing. Who honestly went with the shitty builds possible in Gold Box? It's basically getting rid of shitty 'choice' that no one ever used anyway.

Secondly, I know of a shitton of games from the 'golden age' with a whole bunch of redundant skill options available, often with no real ability to work out whether they would actually be used in the game or not. This isn't 'player choice' or 'fun'. Where's the fun in packing points into something that you realise two thirds into a game that it's a skill that you will use maybe once or twice in the game and that you could have used those points on something else?

FeelTheTurds is full of shit if he thinks that the illusion of choice is a good thing(Check out Twilight 2000's Stats and character list, and then see what is actually useful in the game for example). He should read the fucking article with understanding to see that Sawyer is not saying anything about making every build 'balanced' or optimal. It's all about making variety actually viable. It's all about people not gravitating to the tried and tested staples in party design 'Group always needs fighter, thief, cleric, mage etc.' and deciding immediately to go to 'higher' classes of weapons and armor as soon as possible, but rather to be tempted with trying different options and equipment.

Sawyers approach actually encourages creativity and risk taking, more so than traditionally accepted design in which you know that 90% of players will pick party of x,y,z cause they know that that's the bog standard set that will give the greatest chance of success and play accordingly in the same schematic way. Just check out the threads about crawlers, and people's advice for party balance etc. Notice the almost anguished calls from noobs for advice on creating the 'best' party as they already know that a 'bad' choice means shit. Is this really 'fun'?

In PoE there's nothing to stop you gimping your own characters to emulate the 'good old days', so what's your fucking whining about anyway?

Having real variety is great and should definitely be one of the main goals of any systems designer. However, in practical terms, "variety" and "balance" tend to work against each other. The more distinct the options in your system are, the more difficult it is to balance them. The apparent problem with, say, the attributes in PoE, is that in the name of making them all useful (and therefore making different builds viable), their effects have been neutered to a point where they simply don't matter very much.

On the other hand, the "golden age" games you are so quick to disparage did have a lot of downright worthless options, but the ones which weren't worthless often offered completely different gameplay experiences.

So, if your way of making all the choices viable is making them into fake choices with limited impact, then I don't think it's worth it.

 

[Infinitron]

The apparent problem with, say, the attributes in PoE, is that in the name of making them all useful (and therefore making different builds viable), their effects have been neutered to a point where they simply don't matter very much.

Thing is, I don't think the viability of builds would be affected in any way if the effect of each attribute point was doubled or quadrupled right now. They'd all still be valuable to every character and every class. It's how they're designed.

That might or might not upset balance in some way (perhaps making some spell or other do too much damage, for instance) but that wouldn't be hurting viability - it would be hurting difficulty.

I don't think this is what (some) people are really upset about, although they are conflating it with the real reasons they're upset.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

Thing is, I don't think the viability of builds would be affected in any way if the effect of each attribute point was doubled or quadrupled right now. They'd all still be valuable to every character and every class. It's how they're designed.

That might or might not upset balance in some way (perhaps making some spell or other do too much damage, for instance) but that wouldn't be hurting viability - it would be hurting difficulty.

I don't think this is what (some) people are really upset about, although they are conflating it with the real reasons they're upset.

Would you stop with this mind reading crap all the time? It's getting annoying.

It's simple, stats should either affect things considerably or not be there at all. You should feel the difference between a 3 Might and 18 Might char in battle, there should be more of a consequence for dumping DEX etc. in addition to getting less starting points to allocate.

Different viable builds aspect through attributes is only interesting if said builds actually play differently, if you're encouraged to play to their strengths and forced to suffer for their weaknesses.

You should ponder during character creation whether to play a "safe" character that has distributed stats relatively evenly (and thus has no weak spots) or to opt for a more dangerous less balanced option with dumping one or more stats to max the other one.

 

[set]

For there to be good, there must be bad.

If we eliminate all bad options then there are no good options, all options are equally bad or good.

This is pretty much a false way of thinking; there will always be a better option. If there are 10% more trolls in the game than hobgoblins and trolls are weaker to fire damage then by sheer coincidence fire specialization is more optimal.

If you try to balance your game to accomodate this kind of thinking you will just have a generic mess.

The best kind of RPG design I think is one where you throw caution to the wind and to make very strong extremes, instead of making everything balanced. It's like a difference of dota vs lol - one has hyperplastic design and the other has crazy all over the place.

If you added a passive skill which reduced your life by 80% but increased your damage by 100%, that's inherently more interesting and exciting than a passive which adds 10% damage to your maces.

And from how Josh describes maces, they seem pretty boring. The best weapon sounds like an axe, to me.

 

[Infinitron]

Thing is, I don't think the viability of builds would be affected in any way if the effect of each attribute point was doubled or quadrupled right now. They'd all still be valuable to every character and every class. It's how they're designed.

That might or might not upset balance in some way (perhaps making some spell or other do too much damage, for instance) but that wouldn't be hurting viability - it would be hurting difficulty.

I don't think this is what (some) people are really upset about, although they are conflating it with the real reasons they're upset.

Would you stop with this mind reading crap all the time? It's getting annoying.

It's simple, stats should either affect things considerably or not be there at all. You should feel the difference between a 3 Might and 18 Might char in battle, there should be more of a consequence for dumping DEX etc. in addition to getting less starting points to allocate.

Different viable builds aspect through attributes is only interesting if said builds actually play differently, if you're encouraged to play to their strengths and forced to suffer for their weaknesses.

You should ponder during character creation whether to play a "safe" character that has distributed stats evenly or to opt for a more dangerous less balanced option with dumping one or more stats to max the other one.

I'm not sure where you disagree with me? The attributes are still designed to help all classes, so none of this would hurt anybody's viability. Dumping them might make an "edgy" character that's sort of hard to handle but it would never cripple it.

 

[set]

The attributes just aren't significant enough. 1 dex means 0.5% dps increase? Who cares, exactly? If it were a multiplicative 0.5% increase, I could see that (1.05*1.05*1.05 grows kind of nicely), but...

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

Just catching up on this thread and I guess I have to admire your energy Infinitron. I may not agree with half of your arguments but the battles you've fought across multiple threads, your insistence that Josh and Obsidian have got every single design decision correct and the sheer effort involved... well it surely deserves some sort of commendation beyond any incoming Doritos.

So when will the Obsidian fanboy tag be awarded? Is the design still being finalised?

 

[FeelTheRads]

Considering the amount of posts you've made about PoE, I don't believe you.

Funny, except Obsidian has pulled a "switcheroo". Or rather Sawyer did.
Hey, we're making a game like those you liked.
Hey, we're not actually making a game like those you liked, because those games sucked. HAHAHA.

On the other hand you seem to have some weird desire to play a genre you don't like while dreaming for a day when a knight in shiny armor will turn all that genre into something you like. Call it masochism, or call it retardation, but it's there.

 

[Infinitron]

Just catching up on this thread and I guess I have to admire your energy Infinitron. I may not agree with half of your arguments but the battles you've fought across multiple threads, your insistence that Josh and Obsidian have got every single design decision correct and the sheer effort involved... well it surely deserves some sort of commendation beyond any incoming Doritos.

So when will the Obsidian fanboy tag be awarded? Is the design still being finalised?

Fanboy tags are typically awarded to posters who fanboy for/are obsessed with a single developer or game. My interests are broader than that.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Yes, indeed. Infinitron needs a "mindreader" tag. No poster in the history of Codex has identified so many truths behind the words of people like this guy does.

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

Fanboy tags are typically awarded to posters who fanboy for/are obsessed with a single developer or game. My interests are broader than that.

So Daedalos :D only likes WL2?

:D

 

[tuluse]

Fanboy tags are typically awarded to posters who fanboy for/are obsessed with a single developer or game. My interests are broader than that.

So Daedalos :D only likes WL2?

:D

He was/is a Fargo fanboy, and really vigorously defended WL2.

 

[J_C]

Just catching up on this thread and I guess I have to admire your energy Infinitron. I may not agree with half of your arguments but the battles you've fought across multiple threads, your insistence that Josh and Obsidian have got every single design decision correct and the sheer effort involved... well it surely deserves some sort of commendation beyond any incoming Doritos.

So when will the Obsidian fanboy tag be awarded? Is the design still being finalised?

Fanboy tags are typically awarded to posters who fanboy for/are obsessed with a single developer or game. My interests are broader than that.

If that would be true, Roguey already got one. I'm still butthurt that I received one, but Roguey didn't, yet she is far worse than me in terms of fanboying.