Editorial Josh Sawyer Explains: How to Balance an RPG

[CyberP]

Face it Roguey, you're done. Game over.

Not quite. I love FO:NV's gameplay. The bugs and such, there's deadlines and milestones to meet. You try making highly complex games in a relatively short time period. What matters is it got patched in the end.
FO:NV despite some major flaws is for the most part balanced well, though to see Sawyer's true vision you need his mod.
I'm not striving to become the 2nd disciple here, but don't get things twisted, oh Great One.

You try making highly complex games in a relatively short time period. .

Are you aware FO:NV currently holds the record for the most lines of dialogue in any game? This record can be applied to films also for obvious reasons.

Eh, I'm giving Sawyer too much credit here as FO:NV is essentially one big mod. The code base and other assets were already in place, but world design, writing and such is all fresh.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Indeed, balance issues are so easy to solve, just nerf the overpowered thing! If only your wisdom was available to all game designers, struggling to create balanced systems over the years. Maybe World of Warcraft would've still had competitive PvP if they had hired you instead of Ghostcrawler!

Come on, man. You're not this stupid.

Sawyer agrees with me: https://twitter.com/jesawyer/status/503489827417767936

And I disagree with you: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...w-to-balance-an-rpg.93761/page-8#post-3464019

Again, the builds aren't all viable because the attributes lack impact. That is a way of making all builds viable in an RPG, but it's not the way Pillars is taking. The builds are all viable because each individual attribute is designed, per its description which you can read in its tooltip, to be fairly helpful for all classes. Right now that's not quite the case yet (Perception and Resolve aren't helpful enough in what they affect, which again is a separate problem from the sheer numerical impact of each attribute) but that is the basic principle.

You're wrong. Having attributes designed to be helpful for all classes is not what makes builds viable. What makes them viable, is attributes being useful enough, when measured against the content of the game. Compare Wisdom in 2E, it was useful for all builds, but not nearly as useful as the primary attribute for a class. And if you look at PoE specifically, if the benefit of an attribute can be something like "increases AoE radius", then the usefulness of that is directly proportional to the AoE capabilities of a class. So, either all classes are roughly equally capable in that respect (making them feel samey and overlap in combat), or the attribute will be more useful for some than others.

This is fine, of course, but when you suddenly increase the potency of all attributes, then suddenly you may go from "Intelligence is pretty good for this class" to "Stack Intelligence, win game". At which point, you can either decide to look at this as either a balance problem or a viability problem, but it's a problem nonetheless.

So no, they're not separate.

 

[tuluse]

Int affects both aoe and durations of abilities.

 

[Infinitron]

You're wrong. Having attributes designed to be helpful for all classes is not what makes builds viable. What makes them viable, is attributes being useful enough, when measured against the content of the game.

By "fairly helpful", I meant "useful enough".

And if you look at PoE specifically, if the benefit of an attribute can be something like "increases AoE radius", then the usefulness of that is directly proportional to the AoE capabilities of a class. So, either all classes are roughly equally capable in that respect (making them feel samey and overlap in combat), or the attribute will be more useful for some than others.

That's okay, as long as it's, as you said, useful enough and can create an interesting and viable build (barbarian with crazy high range whirlwind attacks or whatever).

This is fine, of course, but when you suddenly increase the potency of all attributes, then suddenly you may go from "Intelligence is pretty good for this class" to "Stack Intelligence, win game". At which point, you can either decide to look at this as either a balance problem or a viability problem, but it's a problem nonetheless.

Sorry, but I still don't understand why you think "viability problem" and "balance problem" are the same thing. They're not. Your original post said:

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.

There's nothing about balance there, and it's clearly not true.

In any case, as I said, I don't think it's such a difficult balance problem to solve. Nobody said the magnitude of effect of all the attributes had to be increased equally across the board. For example, Sawyer seems to think that Might is about right but Dexterity needs boosting. For those weapons that feel too powerful even when a character with Might 3 is wielding them, he suggests altering the damage of the weapon itself: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67761-dps-vs-accuracy-deflection-heres-the-maths-enjoy/?p=1493485

 

[Blaine]

I find it fascinating that Josh Sawyer has appointed himself arbiter of "how to balance an RPG" without ever having properly balanced an RPG. He did write J.E. Sawyer's Fallout Role-Playing Game; that's not a ringing endorsement, because the game is crude and simple, it's not well balanced, it's derivative of SPECIAL (which he didn't design, and which is actually a pretty bad system), and it's essentially the equivalent of one beginner's short story in the analogy that follows. Still, it's something.

Josh reminds me of people who believe they'd be excellent novelists simply because they've read hundreds of novels. The reality is that while exposure to literature written by someone else may be an excellent foundation to build on, you need to actually start writing lots of short stories, accept both qualified and unqualified critiques of said short stories, perhaps try to get them published someplace (a magazine or anthology, say), and eventually work your way up to writing longer stories that don't suck diseased goat cock. Similarly, reading tabletop RPG rulebooks and even playing sessions can only take you but so far.

His reasoning as to why his balancing theories ought to work is some of the most on-paper shit I've ever heard. It all sounds at least halfway logical, and is easy to argue in favor of before it's actually implemented—but then, building scaled-up wooden replicas of a bird's wings with tree boughs tarred on as feathers and trying to flap them in order to fly probably sounded pretty logical on papyrus.

It would be one thing if Josh had approached this with the humble attitude of someone with a lot still left to learn, but it's the opposite: He's passed judgment on people who've actually created successful tabletop rules systems while simultaneously and arrogantly proclaiming himself the one who'll "fix" everything. I don't like D&D either, but he's never done any better.

TL;DR:

 

[Duraframe300]

I find it fascinating that Josh Sawyer has appointed himself arbiter of "how to balance an RPG" without ever having properly balanced an RPG. He did write J.E. Sawyer's Fallout Role-Playing Game; that's not a ringing endorsement, because the game is crude and simple, it's not well balanced, it's derivative of SPECIAL (which he didn't design, and which is actually a pretty bad system), and it's essentially the equivalent of one beginner's short story in the analogy that follows. Still, it's something.

Josh reminds me of people who believe they'd be excellent novelists simply because they've read hundreds of novels. The reality is that while exposure to literature written by someone else may be an excellent foundation to build on, you need to actually start writing lots of short stories, accept both qualified and unqualified critiques of said short stories, perhaps try to get them published someplace (a magazine or anthology, say), and eventually work your way up to writing longer stories that don't suck diseased goat cock. Similarly, reading tabletop RPG rulebooks and even playing sessions can only take you but so far.

His reasoning as to why his balancing theories ought to work is some of the most on-paper shit I've ever heard. It all sounds at least halfway logical, and is easy to argue in favor of before it's actually implemented—but then, building scaled-up wooden replicas of a bird's wings with tree boughs tarred on as feathers and trying to flap them in order to fly probably sounded pretty logical on papyrus.

It would be one thing if Josh had approached this with the humble attitude of someone with a lot still left to learn, but it's the opposite: He's passed judgment on people who've actually created successful tabletop rules systems while simultaneously and arrogantly proclaiming himself the one who'll "fix" everything. I don't like D&D either, but he's never done any better.

TL;DR:

He did?

 

[Blaine]

He did?

Don't get cute with the hair-splitting.

Is setting himself up as the one who'll "fix" everything more acceptable to you?

 

[roshan]

I'd suggest Sawyer visits the nearest store. There, he will be presented with a variety of options, some of which will be (*gasp*) clearly superior to others. It is up to the buyer to judge which quality / price combination suits him, but that is probably more brain usage than Sawyer wants to see in his games.

Correction: It's probably more brain usage than Sawyer is capable of. Hence the dumbing down.

 

[Duraframe300]

He did?

Don't get cute with the hair-splitting.

Is setting himself up as the one who'll "fix" everything more acceptable to you?

Not really, because thats every game designer ever that has strong opinions. Including a lot of people on the codex. A lot of people want to do better/think they can do better. Thats not always a bad thing.

Not that Sawyer doesn't have (online) a way with words that lead to constant arguments, of course (Its funny, if you listen to comments by ex-Obsidian devs then they describe a different person than you'd think.)

Anyway, k'. I can definitly understand your problems with Sawyer and his attidude.

 

[Infinitron]

When a man speaks authoritatively about a topic that others can't or won't breach, that speech is perceived as an act of intellectual leadership, whether he likes it or not.

Because CRPG designers have neglected to think deeply and talk about issues of game balance over the years, whether because they believe it to be unimportant or because they think nobody is interested, Josh Sawyer has become the poster boy for game balance by default.

If you think Sawyer doesn't know what he's doing, the best thing you could do is ask other designers to talk about balance too. But the problem is that many of those of the "grognard" persuasion think that the very concept of "game balance" is anathema to fun, or complexity, or whatever. They don't want to widen the debate, they want to bury it.

 

[CyberP]

I am appointing myself as the master of how to balance an RPG. I've perfected Deus Ex: balanced it and made it more interesting and in-depth.
I will earn myself multiple Rogueys in due time.

 

[Ninjerk]

I am appointing myself as the master of how to balance an RPG. I've perfected Deus Ex: balanced it and made it more interesting and in-depth.
I will earn myself multiple Rogueys in due time.

So who are you dating?

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

But the problem is that many of those of the "grognard" persuasion think that the very concept of "game balance" is anathema to fun, or complexity, or whatever. They don't want to widen the debate, they want to bury it.

I disagree. Every grognard I've encountered has been willing to discuss balance: every version of DnD, every RPG released... there's always a discussion about what was OP and what was unbalanced. It is a difference of priorities imo. Sawyer seems to put balance ahead of other goals. If something is problematic from a balance point of view he's happy to rip it out of the game. When someone complains that they had fun with it in the past he informs them in his usual tactful manner that no, they didn't really have fun with it.

I realise some of this is just his communication style. But I think that, far from anyone "burying" anything, some gamers would choose a complex, fun game at the expense of balance and they perceive that Sawyer would rather prioritise his balanced system.

 

[CyberP]

So who are you dating?

PewDiePie. I think he does such fine work for the industry and I am his biggest fan. So I am sorry, I'm taken. Thanks though.
You can become my first disciple if you'd like?

 

[Infinitron]

But the problem is that many of those of the "grognard" persuasion think that the very concept of "game balance" is anathema to fun, or complexity, or whatever. They don't want to widen the debate, they want to bury it.

I disagree. Every grognard I've encountered has been willing to discuss balance: every version of DnD, every RPG released... there's always a discussion about what was OP and what was unbalanced. It is a difference of priorities imo. Sawyer seems to put balance ahead of other goals. If something is problematic from a balance point of view he's happy to rip it out of the game. When someone complains that they had fun with it in the past he informs them in his usual tactful manner that no, they didn't really have fun with it.

I realise some of this is just his communication style. But I think that, far from anyone "burying" anything, some gamers would choose a complex, fun game at the expense of balance and they perceive that Sawyer would rather prioritise his balanced system.

Oh, I don't disagree that the grognards themselves have no problem talking about balance. But my impression is that they don't want the game designers making their games to talk about it.

Take a look at the debate I had with Edward R Murrow a short while back about hard counters. Sawyer has a simple principle: all hard counters are bad.

Now, I personally don't have a problem with that. However, I'm not discounting the chance that he might be a touch too dogmatic about it, and that the addition of certain limited immunities and hard counters might not be such a terrible thing.

But the question is, how limited? If all hard counters aren't bad, then which ones are okay and which ones aren't? That's a debate that is currently not happening because nobody except Sawyer is even willing to broach the topic. And that's a shame.

 

[felipepepe]

Take a look at the debate I had with Edward R Murrow a short while back about hard counters. Sawyer has a simple principle: all hard counters are bad.

Now, I personally don't have a problem with that. However, I'm not discounting the chance that he might be a touch too dogmatic about that, and that the addition of certain limited immunities and hard counters might not be such a terrible thing. But the question is, HOW limited? If all hard counters aren't bad, then which one are okay and which ones aren't? That's a debate that is currently not happening because nobody except Sawyer is even willing to broach the topic. And that's a shame.

This debate isn't happening because no other game designer cares about Sawyer's narrow views, and the forum posters that care and try to debate this are simply "grognards" that never made a game before, so they "don't count".

I tried to debate this before. Told you that Hard Counters work perfectly when coupled with clever encounter design and harsh drawbacks. Your reply was something on the line of "yeah, the old 'make more content' solution". That was what killed that debate.

 

[Cosmo]

When a man speaks authoritatively about a topic that others can't or won't breach, that speech is perceived as an act of intellectual leadership, whether he likes it or not.

Because CRPG designers have neglected to think deeply and talk about issues of game balance over the years, whether because they believe it to be unimportant or because they think nobody is interested, Josh Sawyer has become the poster boy for game balance by default.

If you think Sawyer doesn't know what he's doing, the best thing you could do is ask other designers to talk about balance too. But the problem is that many of those of the "grognard" persuasion think that the very concept of "game balance" is anathema to fun, or complexity, or whatever. They don't want to widen the debate, they want to bury it.

Precisely what's disappointing about the average kneejerk reaction about Sawyer around these parts...
He only seems like a self appointed authority because he's the only one trying to build a constructive thought about CRPGs. The only one with enough respect of the genre to do that, and instead of countering his points rationally (a fact he actively invites), most of the time we see a proud attitude of intellectual laziness, and GD amounts of ad hominems and shit-flinging. Nobody expects you to like what he does, but at least respect the fact that his methods and reasonings are out in the open, for you to tackle. Go ahead, find their flaws, but stop thinking your childhood games are sacred cows : yes they were enjoyable, but to move the genre forward, no other way but to understand their flaws.

 

[Infinitron]

Let me clarify that I'm not talking about having more forum discussions between fans. It's a call for other professional game designers to come forth with their own comprehensive treatises on game balance. There just needs to be more thought out there about this stuff. Or in other words,

This debate isn't happening because no other game designer cares about Sawyer's narrow views

Yeah.

(btw, I'm sure that there's quite an active discussion of game balance among designers of more competitive genres, but we're talking specifically about single player CRPGs here)

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

He only seems like a self appointed authority because he's the only one trying to build a constructive thought about CRPGs. The only one with enough respect of the genre to do that, and instead of countering his points rationally (which he actively invites, if not why would he share his work philosophy so often ?), most of the time we see intellectual laziness, GD level of ad hominems and shit-flinging.

Here are some of his recent "invites" to rational debate :D (courtesy, his #1 disciple):

If it is not rewarding enough to play on its own, stop playing our terrible game.

If participating in a specific type of core gameplay is not enjoyable on its own, our game is bad and I sincerely encourage people to not engage in it/not play the game.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

In any case, as I said, I don't think it's such a difficult balance problem to solve. Nobody said the magnitude of effect of all the attributes had to be increased equally across the board. For example, Sawyer seems to think that Might is about right but Dexterity needs boosting. For those weapons that feel too powerful even when a character with Might 3 is wielding them, he suggests altering the damage of the weapon itself: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67761-dps-vs-accuracy-deflection-heres-the-maths-enjoy/?p=1493485

Which shows he doesn't get it. The issue is that a difference between a char who dumps Might and the char who maxes it is far too small, messing with weapon damage numbers won't really solve it. There is not enough cost to dumping a stat, nor enough of a reward for maxing it. All that you can decide within this current system is whether you want to make an awesome character or a slightly more awesome one.

If you think Sawyer doesn't know what he's doing, the best thing you could do is ask other designers to talk about balance too. But the problem is that many of those of the "grognard" persuasion think that the very concept of "game balance" is anathema to fun, or complexity, or whatever. They don't want to widen the debate, they want to bury it.

No, if you're gonna debate atleast try to understand and not misinterpret what the other side is sying. Nobody is against game balance in principle, they're arguing against putting game balance ahead of everything else in a fucking single player game. Balance should be merely one of the things game designer focuses on, not an obssession that drives the whole project.

 

[Cosmo]

He only seems like a self appointed authority because he's the only one trying to build a constructive thought about CRPGs. The only one with enough respect of the genre to do that, and instead of countering his points rationally (which he actively invites, if not why would he share his work philosophy so often ?), most of the time we see intellectual laziness, GD level of ad hominems and shit-flinging.

Here are some of his recent "invites" to rational debate :D (courtesy, his #1 disciple):

If it is not rewarding enough to play on its own, stop playing our terrible game.

If participating in a specific type of core gameplay is not enjoyable on its own, our game is bad and I sincerely encourage people to not engage in it/not play the game.

Exactly what i said : why would he feel beholden to crybabies whose only motto is "you did everything wrong" ?
You can only respond rationally to rational points. If people can't be bothered to discuss gameplay on its own terms, they should get used to receive that kind of answer.

 

[Infinitron]

an obssession that drives the whole project.

citation needed

 

[felipepepe]

He only seems like a self appointed authority because he's the only one trying to build a constructive thought about CRPGs.

BULLSHIT! Why, because he posted on Kotaku and constantly talks about how he hates D&D? Because Roguey quotes him every 5 seconds? There are many others expressing their opinion and debating as well.

Craig Stern has his rants about why deterministic attacks are better than % rolls. Jay Barson and Matt Barton just debated this week in their posts if potions are useful for RPGs or not. VD hosted a series of roundtables at Iron Tower, with great debates from various developers. Styg comes here to debate with us how he's changing his XP system to something different. The guys behind M&M X made blog posts about every decision they made for their game, and many other devs do the same. The list goes on and on...

 

[FeelTheRads]

Here are some of his recent "invites" to rational debate :D (courtesy, his #1 disciple):

It's the typical "we can no-wrong, if you don't like it you're a hater" attitude that's everywhere in gaming these days. Funny to see people say that he's different.

 

[Infinitron]

He only seems like a self appointed authority because he's the only one trying to build a constructive thought about CRPGs.

BULLSHIT! Why, because he posted on Kotaku and constantly talks about how he hates D&D? Because Roguey quotes him every 5 seconds? There are many others expressing their opinion and debating as well.

Craig Stern has his rants about why deterministic attacks are better than % rolls. Jay Barson and Matt Barton just debated this week in their posts if potions are useful for RPGs or not. VD hosted a series of roundtables at Iron Tower, with great debates from various developers. Styg comes here to debate with us how he's changing his XP system to something different. The guys behind M&M X made blog posts about every decision they made for their game, and many other devs do the same. The list goes on and on...

Notice how many of those are indies, though?

As for MMX, they had a lot of blog posts describing the game's various systems but I don't recall them going in depth about the reasons behind balance decisions. For example, the whole thing about the weapon durability system which was never really explained.