mister lamat said:
Is it really that hard to hit shift?
within every system there are going to be far end variables. ones that will utterly suck but might be fun to play and ones which are just so insanely overpowered nothing can honestly stop them.
First, you are talking bollocks.
Second, balance is a non-trivial issue.
A system where you can pick certain characters which are less challenging than others is not "broken". In single player games, there is no reason for all characters to have the same level of difficulty - just so long as any reasonable character is entertaining to play. If you managed to create a great character build, and had an easier time playing, you did not "break" the system - you simply played an easy build.
Variety in challenge between character builds and game paths is not necessarily a problem (so long as all paths entertain). The larger problem is the type of idiotic imbalance you find in Bethesda's worlds - for example, the lack of balance in economy, the lack of balance in alchemy, the lack of balance in item power. I'm not talking about item X being better than item Y here - I'm talking about mechanics allowing item combinations that can make the player literally invulnerable to any enemy (e.g. 100% chameleon), fortify intelligence potions that create a feedback loop allowing a character to get into the millions in any stat....
The PC levelling system also sucks horribly, and demonstrates another variety of Bethesda "balance" - stale uniformity. Every character tends towards almost exactly the same end position, regardless of initial setup or action. This is both incoherent, and extremely dull.
If a system supports a coherent game world, and provides interest, variety and entertainment, it's balanced (whether or not you can use your uber-min-maxing to create the BEST BUILD EVAR).
If a system destroys the coherence of a game world, or serves to make things dull and unentertaining, it's not balanced (even if it's fair and uniform).
like i said, almost twenty years and a guard safh still rapes the table. nothing you can do about it either. ain't fun to play with or against but it does break the system. fourth edition and they still haven't a clue as how to fix it.
I have no idea what you're talking about. If it's some "D&D is broken, therefore everything must be" argument, then you're still talking bollocks.
Most P&P systems are poorly balanced in many areas, since they favour extensive (often sloppy) design over tight design. Refinements to future versions are also made difficult - both by the tendency of some fans to prefer to cling to their favourite rules/builds, rather than see balance, and the wisdom of others to know that imbalances can be fixed on-the-fly by any DM/group with sense - so better to spend time on creative expansion.
i can break ja, ja2, ss, s3, h&s, d&d, special, gurps and a helluva lot of other tactical combat games and rpgs just by looking at the system. it's not hard. it's also not fun.
First, I doubt that you're using a sane definition of "break" - see above.
Second, so what? Listing a group of broken systems implies nothing about the possibility of producing one that isn't broken. If you can't see that possibility, you are stupid.
Your statement was an absurd sweeping generalization. It's nonsense in general (e.g. try breaking Chess or Go). Creating an RPG system which is well balanced (in important senses) might be harder, but it isn't impossible.
Even if one were to accept your absurd notions of impossibility, that would be no reason not to identify a balanced system as an aim. There are more degrees of balance than simply "broken" or "not broken". Deciding that you can't do something perfectly, and therefore shouldn't try to do it at all, is stupidity.
if you know of a system that doesn't have a 'fuck you, i win' build or tactic lemme know. some take a bit of skill to pull off, but it's the broken math that's kickin' the other players ass.
Again, you have an idiotic notion of what it means for a system to be broken. That you have the leet skilz to create a SPECIAL character that makes the game less challenging than others does not make the system broken - it simply means that your character creation choices affect game difficulty.
To take some examples:
Fallout's levelling - some perks are more effective than others; a few aren't useful at all (in powergaming terms). Considerable variety is possible. Incentivizes killing stuff and doing quests. Not perfect, but not broken.
Morrowind's levelling - all characters end up almost identical. Skill choices make little difference. Choices at level increase make almost no difference. Incentivizes repetetive pointless actions (casting 1 point spells at walls). Incentivizes absurd actions (e.g. stabbing enemies to death with a cheap, blunt mace). Incentivizes nonsensically ordered skill increases, with tactically timed sleeping. Has order dependence in attribute increases, further incentivizing absurd play. Broken.
Fallout's economy - keeps most players relatively poor for quite a while. Allows skilled players to take advantage of gambling. Generally reasonable, if not perfect.
Morrowind's economy - allows every player to get absurdly rich, regardless of skillset. Allows any player to exploit the barter system to gain all a merchant's money, regardless of skill. Allows any player competent in speechcraft/mercantile to buy from a merchant, then sell THE SAME ITEM back for more money a few seconds later. etc. etc. Broken.
In both of these areas, Fallout provides variety (though less than it might), and allows the player to play more effectively in coherent, interesting (for a while) ways. Morrowind provides no variety, is incoherent, and incentivizes very dull gameplay.
In the end, the goal is entertainment - not uniformity. Fallout doesn't achieve this perfectly with its systems, but it makes a reasonable attempt (e.g. the perks system is not itself broken - though a few individual perks are). Morrowind's systems do a horrible job, and are largely inherently broken - it's not one item, one birthsign, one merchant... that creates the imbalance: it's the stupid design of the central mechanics.
Most RPGs are going to have content that's more or less broken. In practice, that might be almost unavoidable. They certainly don't need to contain broken core systems - which Morrowind does in abundance.
most would have been corrected with proper spelling or paired coding... or just, you know, not forgetting to do stuff.
You are still talking bollocks.
It's simply a question of time. Spelling errors are spotted with enough testing of the area where they occur. That area gets more attention in games with non-branching systems.
I don't know where you're going with "paired coding" - presumably an attempt to look knowledgeable. If you think it's either a bug prevention panacea, or something you'd do to avoid spelling errors in dialogue, you're deluded.
if you can fix beth's system and make it not suck in a weekend go for it! i know random guy from the internet will have all the answers!
The absurd design can mostly be removed with a few moments' thought. Some of it isn't absurd, but could be improved - it'd take longer to get it right. The weekend + sense would get you only as far as not utterly incoherent crap.
In a small area I've already done this (for Morrowind's levelling system). Improving the design is very easy. Implementing it with a scripting system not designed for the purpose is hard.
I'm not sure I could produce a good system for core game mechanics in a weekend (certainly not one I'd be satisfied with); I'm very sure I could produce one that'd be better than Morrowind. That's not because I'm a great designer - it's because it's difficult to find aspects of Morrowind's core systems that
aren't horribly flawed.
