How to prevent party NPCs from disbalancing the game?

[Malraz Alizar]

It is retarded to try and balance it so one guy is equally as effective as 8 guys.

What about balancing it so a dumb guy is as effective as a smart guy? Say, by giving the dumb guy other advantages, such as increased strength or agility? Or what about balancing it so a fistfighter is just as effective as a gunfighter? Are you genuinely suggesting that the potential for making interesting, mechanically-significant decisions in character creation is all just so much retarded artifice?

 

[Mastermind]

Or what about balancing it so a fistfighter is just as effective as a gunfighter?

A fist fighter should not be as effective as a gunfighter. He should have some contextual advantages (IE: when getting caught in very close quarters, or jumped while sleeping) but for the most part a gunfighter should be able to mop the floor with a fist fighter. The designer should not retardedly adjust his design so a fist fighter can slaughter people as quickly, painlessly and effectively as a gunfighter just so retards can play super mike tyson.

I think the balance of older games like BG2 where most experience was split among the party works best. Situations that would be hell for 6 lower level characters could be a breeze for a high level sorcerer because he has access to a number of fantastic spells the 6 player party does not. This could be adjusted for a post-apoc rpg where a lone master spy would be able to sneak past almost anything and access vital systems (like AC vents) for the purpose of introducing neurotoxins that will knock out the entire population of a facility and just let him waltz in and take whatever he wants, whereas a party of 6 would not have a spy good enough to sneak past elite soldiers and would have to fight through them. If the enemy soldiers are good enough the job would be considerably slower and more difficult for the party of 6 than for the lone spy.

 

[Malraz Alizar]

What about balancing it so a dumb guy is as effective as a smart guy? Say, by giving the dumb guy other advantages, such as increased strength or agility? Or what about balancing it so a fistfighter is just as effective as a gunfighter?

A fist fighter should not be as effective as a gunfighter. He should have some contextual advantages (IE: when getting caught in very close quarters, or jumped while sleeping) but for the most part a gunfighter should be able to mop the floor with a fist fighter. The designer should not retardedly adjust his design so a fist fighter can slaughter people as quickly, painlessly and effectively as a gunfighter just so retards can play super mike tyson.

Look, you're obviously a genius in real life. Does that necessarily make you weaker, slower, and/or less physically attractive than the "retards" of whom you speak? If not, then why is it more acceptable in your mind for a retarded character to receive the kind of universal advantages that would make him generally competitive with a smart one, but the best a brawler can hope for is to not be completely disadvantaged in every conceivable situation?

Here's an experiment for you to try at home: see how many ways you can come up with to balance the skill of boxing with the skill of sharpshooting, starting with making one skill less expensive to buy up than the other and finishing with creating an entire reality - let's call it the one we live in - where being Mike Tyson can make you richer and more renowned than even the world's greatest marksman.

 

[Mastermind]

Look, you're obviously a genius in real life. Does that necessarily make you weaker, slower, and/or less physically attractive than the "retards" of whom you speak?

The balancing should be done by the player, not the designer.

If not, then why is it more acceptable in your mind for a retarded character to receive the kind of universal advantages that would make him generally competitive with a smart one

Did I say it is?

Here's an experiment for you to try at home: see how many ways you can come up with to balance the skill of boxing with the skill of sharpshooting

Why? I've been making the case against balancing skills just for the sake of making them equally useful. I'm fine if unarmed combat is weaker than marksmanship, as long as unarmed combat can perform some functions a class finds useful (otherwise don't include it at all). That, to me, is all the balance a single player game is. Don't put useless shit in it. And don't insult my intelligence by having unarmed guys charge 5 heavily armed mercenaries and win.

let's call it the one we live in

Let's not, since the game is a post-apocalyptic setting and not our world with the immense marketing machines behind sporting events. Nevermind that making money does not necessarily translate into effectiveness.

 

[Malraz Alizar]

Why? I've been making the case against balancing skills just for the sake of making them equally useful. I'm fine if unarmed combat is weaker than marksmanship, as long as unarmed combat can perform some functions a class finds useful (otherwise don't include it at all). That, to me, is all the balance a single player game is. Don't put useless shit in it. And don't insult my intelligence by having unarmed guys charge 5 heavily armed mercenaries and win.

let's call it the one we live in

Let's not, since the game is a post-apocalyptic setting and not our world with the immense marketing machines behind sporting events. Nevermind that making money does not necessarily translate into effectiveness.

On the one hand, you're demanding a ruleset that attempts to simulate "reality" as you understand it; on the other, a fantasy world where the primary (possibly only?) method of problem-solving is combat to the death, and where success is measured in corpses per hour rather than anything so gauche as money or status. If there is a purpose to this beyond masturbation, I would be relieved to hear it.

 

[Mastermind]

On the one hand, you're demanding a ruleset that attempts to simulate "reality" as you understand it; on the other, a fantasy world where the primary (possibly only?) method of problem-solving is combat to the death, and where success is measured in corpses per hour rather than anything so gauche as money or status. If there is a purpose to this beyond masturbation, I would be relieved to hear it.

The overwhelming purpose of fist fighting and gun fighting is combat. Since that comparison was the topic of our discussion, what the fuck am I supposed to talk about? It doesn't mean "the only method of problem-solving is combat to the death" (a fucking retarded comment in light of my earlier spy example). It just means that when it comes to that purpose, guns win out over fists by a mile, as they should. And since lethal combat is a lot more useful than non-lethal combat in general, guns will win out overall as well. Even fist fighting for money involves combat. What the fuck should I talk about, the use of fists and guns in terms of persuasion? Even there, you'll pretty much never intimidate someone with a gun with your fists. But you can bet your ass you can intimidate an unarmed character with your gun. In all but a handful of contextual situations a gun will win out over a fist. Particularly in a post-apocalyptic setting without the marketing infrastructure (which could very well end up favoring gladiator matches involving guns just as easily as it could favor boxing in an alternate reality).

 

[Malraz Alizar]

The overwhelming purpose of fist fighting and gun fighting is combat. Since that comparison was the topic of our discussion, what the fuck am I supposed to talk about? It doesn't mean "the only method of problem-solving is combat to the death" (a fucking retarded comment in light of my earlier spy example). It just means that when it comes to that purpose, guns win out over fists by a mile, as they should. And since lethal combat is a lot more useful than non-lethal combat in general, guns will win out overall as well. Even fist fighting for money involves combat. What the fuck should I talk about, the use of fists and guns in terms of persuasion? Even there, you'll pretty much never intimidate someone with a gun with your fists. But you can bet your ass you can intimidate an unarmed character with your gun. In all but a handful of contextual situations a gun will win out over a fist. Particularly in a post-apocalyptic setting without the marketing infrastructure (which could very well end up favoring gladiator matches involving guns just as easily as it could favor boxing in an alternate reality).

Listen to yourself, lecturing me about the comparative utility of abstract character skills in a post-apocalyptic society. How many hit points will the gun-gladiators have?

The balancing should be done by the player, not the designer.

Awesome. Why don't I just go ahead and make the texture maps while I'm at it?

Edit: removed needless snark. It's Christmas - we should be friends!

 

[Excommunicator]

This discussion is too vague for me to want to wade in or even ask clarification on the terms used, but when you are having discussions like this, don't make assumptions on the context/setting (just face it, you only do that to help bolster your argument, when it really doesn't).

There are many contexts in which hand to hand combat can be "balanced" against gun wielding, both within a realism-based context, or in a fictional one. Fallout isn't a realism-based setting, it has mutants and all sorts of crap. They used their imagination, so you need to try and use yours.

The only clear thing about this discussion is the lack of clear terms. Hint: game balancing is not about making A = B

 

[shihonage]

Yeah, my question wasn't about "making the combat the same with 1 person as it is with 3", as some here said. This would be a horrible idea.

It is about gaining some things and losing others. For instance, gaining increased firepower, but also having to heal your companions because some of them get into random fights with one another.

In Fallout, the dumb back-shooting, door-blocking AI and limited leveling were good countermeasures of this type.

 

[Shemar]

AI controlled companions? I'll pass. That is usually a deal breaker for me. Balance or no balance.

For example this: "some of them get into random fights with one another" in a game's review would be enough for me not to buy it no matter what other features the game has.

 

[shihonage]

It would be up to the player whether to pair up incompatible companions.

Skimmer.

 

[Malraz Alizar]

Hi shihonage,

I thought you might be interested in these, the "complete" NPC rules from the original Dungeons & Dragons boxed set. It's amazing to think we're still grappling with these issues nearly forty years later. Best of luck to you!

Only the lowest level of character types can be hired. The player wishing to hire a non-player character "advertises" by posting notices at inns and taverns, frequents public places seeking the desired hireling, or sends messengers to whatever place the desired character type would be found (elf-land, dwarf-land, etc).

This costs money and takes time, and the referee must determine expenditures. Once some response has been obtained, the player must make an offer to tempt the desired character type into his service. As a rule of thumb, a minimum offer of 100 Gold Pieces would be required to tempt a human into service, dwarves are more interested in gold, Magic-Users and elves desire magical items, and Clerics want some assurance of having a place of worship in which to house themselves.

Monsters can be lured into service if they are of the same basic alignment as the player-character, or they can be Charmed and thus ordered to serve. Note, however, that the term "monster" includes men found in the dungeons, so in this way some high-level characters can be brought into a character's service, charisma allowing or through a Charm spell. Some reward must be offered to a monster in order to induce it into service (not just sparing its life, for example). The monster will react, with appropriate plusses or minuses, according to the offer, the referee rolling two six-sided dice and adjusting for charisma:

Dice Score Reaction
2 Attempts to attack
3-5 Hostile reaction
6-8 Uncertain
9-11 Accepts offer
12 Enthusiast, Loyalty +3

An "Uncertain" reaction leaves the door open to additional reward offers, but scores under 6 do not.

 

[Mastermind]

There are many contexts in which hand to hand combat can be "balanced" against gun wielding, both within a realism-based context, or in a fictional one. Fallout isn't a realism-based setting, it has mutants and all sorts of crap. They used their imagination, so you need to try and use yours.

Guns are vastly superior to melee combat in Fallout. So yeah, it was balanced right in the sense that it wasn't balanced at all and there was no reason to go with melee aside from larping.

 

[DraQ]

A good starting point in trying to come up with a way to balance something is trying to think how would RL do it.

How does RL limit the size of a group of shady characters going somewhere away from civilization hoping to find loot, adventure and an opportunity to kill stuff?
-loot the group can hope to find will be limited and will have to be split
-there is logistic factor involved, providing a small group with ammo, weapons and other supplies, is much less of a challenge than providing same things to a small army
-unless there are some very specific plot or character related reasons involved, group members will have much reason to distrust each other, get pissed off at each other, fight for leadership, or silently murderize competition and abscond with loot. They may also just leave at the least convenient moment. To sum it up, companins are generally not reliable
-large groups, especially containing not very stealthy members, are not very stealthy
-slow members will slow the group down, weak members will force others to do more heavy lifting and so on

If you were going to visit an abandoned temple of doom somewhere, or maybe a half-glassed ancient military base, hoping to get your grubby little fingers on the phat lewt residing within, you don't want to take other people with you. You only do so, because they may help you out somehow, but it's definitely not because you think the more the merrier, just because you don't think you can make it alone.

Of course, if you design a game as a single-character game from the beginning to the end, it should be balanced differently than a game designed for a party.

It is retarded to try and balance it so one guy is equally as effective as 8 guys.

What about balancing it so a dumb guy is as effective as a smart guy? Say, by giving the dumb guy other advantages, such as increased strength or agility? Or what about balancing it so a fistfighter is just as effective as a gunfighter? Are you genuinely suggesting that the potential for making interesting, mechanically-significant decisions in character creation is all just so much retarded artifice?

Balancing in terms of power *is* "retarded artifice", unless you're making a competitive, free-for-all multiplayer game.

Balancing should be done entirely from the point of providing gameplay opportunities and from the point of basic build viability. Our kung-fu mastah would be essentially dead meat at the distances he can't cover before the other guy can shoot him in normal combat, but his skill might come useful and profitable in certain scenarios marksman's skills won't - non-lethal combat (even in PA setting, most communities will be more forthcoming if you end a brawl by beating people unconscious, than shooting them dead), fighting for profit, fighting without having your firearm at hand or where firearms would be unusable, stealthy combat, lack of ammo (then again, melee weapons might work better here). It shouldn't fill the same niche as marksmanship, despite being technically also a combat skill. As a matter of fact, no two skills ever should make each other redundant.

Also, you shouldn't expect gun gladiators. Guns are pretty unexciting compared to melee, guns are dangerous to you and your spectators, ammo is expensive.

AI controlled companions? I'll pass. That is usually a deal breaker for me. Balance or no balance.

So, in other words, Fallout sucks balls?

 

[Shemar]

AI controlled companions? I'll pass. That is usually a deal breaker for me. Balance or no balance.

So, in other words, Fallout sucks balls?

I don't remember much of Fallout. It has been many years since I played it and unlike other people here, it does not really rank high as far as memorable games go for me.

I do know that if a new turn based Fallout was to be released today with AI NPC companions I would probably not buy it if having the companions around in combat was a big part of the game.

Having said that there are levels of AI. As long as I have enough control to tell the AI to stay, follow, attack melee and attack ranged and I can count on it to do as I said and not decide otherwise, then it can be tolerable, if the combat system is simplistic enough. NPC AI with a decent combat system like X-Com/JA2/Silent Storm or even NWN2/DA:O would just ruin the whole thing outright.

 

[DraQ]

AI controlled companions? I'll pass. That is usually a deal breaker for me. Balance or no balance.

So, in other words, Fallout sucks balls?

I don't remember much of Fallout. It has been many years since I played it and unlike other people here, it does not really rank high as far as memorable games go for me.

I do know that if a new turn based Fallout was to be released today with AI NPC companions I would probably not buy it if having the companions around in combat was a big part of the game.

Having painted the target, I will now sit back and enjoy watching
tear you a new one.