Editorial Josh Sawyer Explains: How to Balance an RPG

[Athelas]

Somehow 'trash options are the inevitable result of designing a complex game' has been adopted into 'designers should deliberately spend resources on implementing trash options'.

 

[HiddenX]

The word balancing as a synonym for good game design is just plain wrong.

1) First you make a design that features all core gameplay elements (character classes, attributes, skills, gear, spells, leveling, XP system, main story, etc.)
2) Then you begin to implement a gameworld (place stuff, enemies, NPCs, adjust enemies HP and resistances, ...)
3) Only after that the balancing can begin: If the challenge curve for most parties and pathes through the game is satisfying GOTO 4 ELSE GOTO 2
4) Finshed game

To garantee a balanced game from phase 1) is neither possible nor desireable.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Somehow 'trash options are the inevitable result of designing a complex game' has been adopted into 'designers should deliberately spend resources on implementing trash options'.

Or maybe "balance the game" had been adopted into "everything must be the same"
Or maybe "trash" has been adopted into "worse than the overpowered build"
Huh? Maybe? I DUNNO I LIKE TO STARWMAN !!!

You don't spend resources on trash options. You spend resources on options. If the game is complex some of those options might become "trash". So? A simplistic game with no trash options is somehow more desirable than a complex game with thrash options?
That is why we can't have nice things, because of popamoler balancefags like you.

 

[Athelas]

Or maybe "balance the game" had been adopted into "everything must be the same"
Or maybe "trash" has been adopted into "worse than the overpowered build"
Huh? Maybe? I DUNNO I LIKE TO STARWMAN !!!

You don't spend resources on trash options. You spend resources on options. If the game is complex some of those options might become "trash". So? A simplistic game with no trash options is somehow more desirable than a complex game with thrash options?
That is why we can't have nice things, because of popamoler balancefags like you.

Do you have trouble reading? There have been posts in this thread where people genuinely seem to believe designers deliberately implemented trash options to spice up their game by making it more 'interesting' or 'hardcore'. That's what I was referring to.

 

[FeelTheRads]

It's possible we each see only what we want to see. I didn't see anyone specifically saying that, but I see a lot of retarded shit like:

I think Sawyer's idea of balance is to eliminate trash choices in general. Make them not-trash.
Trash Choices are bad because they really don't add content into the game. I see it a lot in his design for Van Buren.
Case in point: Fallout games.
Most skills were simply un-tagable. Small Guns, Unarmed, Melee, Lockpick, Speech, sure, those were good. Gambling gave you pretty much infinite jewgold but you had to wait like two or three cities, and that was that. Energy Weapons and Big Guns were mid-game skills. Science and Repair only had a few uses, most of them by mid-game, and you had no reason whatsoever to tag them. Sneak was rarely useful (except in Fallout 2, were it was mainly for stealth kills). Outdoorsman was useless in 1, in 2 only worthy a tag if you were a pacifist, or trying to do a Navarro run, otherwise you could get enough of it in other ways. Barter, Traps, Throwing and Steal were pretty much useless.

So yes, trash options are bullshit.

In other words, anything that's not as useful as the best is trash.

Btw, Throwing and Steal useless. Only a popamoler balancefag could come up with something like that.

 

[Cosmo]

The word balancing as a synonym for good game design is just plain wrong.

1) First you make a design that features all core gameplay elements (character classes, attributes, skills, gear, spells, leveling, XP system, main story, etc.)
2) Then you begin to implement a gameworld (place stuff, enemies, NPCs, adjust enemies HP and resistances, ...)
3) Only after that the balancing can begin: If the challenge curve for most parties and pathes through the game is satisfying GOTO 4 ELSE GOTO 2
4) Finshed game

To garantee a balanced game from phase 1) is neither possible nor desireable.

That's all well and good, but you're not a game designer are you ?
Simply put, a list of judgments based on your own preexisting opinions doesn't prove anything.

Example of another method :
- first deciding the type of experience you want to provide (in synergy with world building)
- then shaping an model of gameplay around that concept (and frankly if you're a designer that's not able to figure out gameplay abstractly, it might be a hint it's time to quit your job)
- building a game system, that will serve as the frame for the whole range of things players will be able to do in-game
- then, in the context of said system, a character system that will enable both diversity and validity for various character builds (because, knowing that character creation comes before actual playing experience in a CRPG, you logically inferred that providing trash options in that context is just misleading and the sign of a sloppy job)
- adjust character system to gameplay even more so that character options don't cheat players out of gameplay validity (because you know that balance is not a straw notion dictating that everything should be the same, but rather the means to an end, that is to say enabling diverse play styles without any one of them being obviously superior to the other)...

 

[Infinitron]

Do you have trouble reading? There have been posts in this thread where people genuinely seem to believe designers deliberately implemented trash options to spice up their game by making it more 'interesting' or 'hardcore'. That's what I was referring to.

You're being charitable. I think that RPG designers do deliberately implement certain trash options. Namely, the fact that "low-tier" equipment types like daggers are useless in most RPGs seems entirely deliberate. This is done for world simulation purposes. Yes, daggers suck, but it wouldn't make sense to have a medieval fantasy world without daggers, so there they are.

 

[Cosmo]

You're being charitable. I think that RPG designers do deliberately implement certain trash options. Namely, the fact that "low-tier" equipment types like daggers are useless in most RPGs seems entirely deliberate. This is done for world simulation purposes. Yes, daggers suck, but it wouldn't make sense to have a medieval fantasy world without daggers, so there they are.

Following that example, there would be ways to eliminating this trash option without getting rid of daggers altogether : as it was a valid choice in certain instances of medieval combat (punching through chainmail at very close quarters for example), make it valid gameplay wise (i.e. remove the trashiness, not the option). That was partially the point of D&D backstabs, wasn't it ?

 

[Johannes]

So far pretty much every single party-based CRPG has proved the "you can't solo it" statement wrong. No matter its design philosophy, I don't expect PoE to be different in this regard.

Also, felipepepe, PoE may or may not turn out to be a failure, but you can't really call Sawyer more arrogant than your average Codex poster who discusses RPG design. Also also, I think a perfectly balanced CRPG would be an interesting experiment - and I always welcome experimental approaches to RPG design - again, no matter if PoE achieves this goal or not.

A perfectly balanced RPG? Wtf is that supposed to be. There's no way to objectively measure a games' balance, that's like saying an RPG with perfect gameplay would be interesting.

 

[Johannes]

Following that example, there would be ways to eliminating this trash option without getting rid of daggers altogether : as it was a valid choice in certain instances of medieval combat (punching through chainmail at very close quarters for example), make it valid gameplay wise (i.e. remove the trashiness, not the option). That was partially the point of D&D backstabs, wasn't it ?

Punching through chainmail with a dagger? No, that's a ridiculous example. Realistically knives would be useful for easy concealment and carrying, for grappling distance fighting, and possible magical powers. But you ain't gonna punch through proper armor with one unless you're a troll or something.

 

[Pope Amole II]

He's just using the wrong armor example here - misericordes were used against plate armours in such matter, striking through the various holes/joints of the armor. And we also shouldn't forget that, like the bollock dagger (which was exactly what it sounds), daggers could've been a status thing. "Санитары Подземелий" aka Planet Alcatraz aka Dungeon Cleaners were a mediocre game (mechanically-wise), but they had one wonderful idea going on - you had the "authority" rating (which was basically like intimidation, showing how tough do you look) and it was based partially on your charisma, but also on your gear. So the blingier bling you had, the more serious you were treated. Sounds ghetto-like, sure, but the whole medieval Europe was like one big fucking ghetto so it's pretty much ok. Anyways, daggers can have a lot of uses even if they're worthless as a direct combat weapon - that's why real life daggers actually existed, y'know.

 

[Cosmo]

Punching through chainmail with a dagger? No, that's a ridiculous example.

Rondel dagger.
"Rondel daggers were ideal in battle for puncturing chain mail."

I know Wikipedia ain't perfect, but i still find it more reliable that some self-appointed expert on the internet (sowy).
Besides, being dragged in a nitpicking contest was not the point of my post.

 

[HiddenX]

The word balancing as a synonym for good game design is just plain wrong.

1) First you make a design that features all core gameplay elements (character classes, attributes, skills, gear, spells, leveling, XP system, main story, etc.)
2) Then you begin to implement a gameworld (place stuff, enemies, NPCs, adjust enemies HP and resistances, ...)
3) Only after that the balancing can begin: If the challenge curve for most parties and pathes through the game is satisfying GOTO 4 ELSE GOTO 2
4) Finshed game

To garantee a balanced game from phase 1) is neither possible nor desireable.

That's all well and good, but you're not a game designer are you ?

No I'm not a game designer, but I'm an experienced software engineer for enterprise information systems for more than 25 years.
I know how to build and finetune complex software and databases.
In my whole career I have rarely seen software that was good or well functioning directly from a user requirement specification or from a system specification, even if they were well written. Because of this Agile Software Development methods are modern and state of the art today, not the old bullshit V-model.
Software development is an iterative process, where finetuning and balancing comes after the initial design phase. Redesign is of course possible during the iterative phase.

 

[Roguey]

sounds like sawyer is a crypto-larper, considering that facade would be an rpg by that definition.

 

[Cosmo]

No I'm not a game designer, but I'm an experienced software engineer for enterprise information systems for more than 25 years.

I was talking about the game designing side of things, so i don't really understand what you're trying to prove there. And if your point is "game designing is nothing outside of software engineering", then i'd answer a second time that if you can't figure a balanced gameplay system and its broad rules before software implementation, then you're just a poor excuse for a game designer. Because that's only supposed to be the basis of your job.
Of course there will always be iteration after that, but that makes all the difference between fine tuning and having to rewrite whole chunks of the game because you couldn't be bothered to properly flesh out the game's rules and their link to actual gameplay.

 

[SuicideBunny]

pic

so that's a yes... also larping is role playing without mechanical effects to support it or emphasizing the flavor side of things over the substance side. letting people express their character in conversation options that change the story isn't roleplaying as long as the character stats have no effect on it and it has no effect on character stats. it's the tying of those two together that makes an rpg and you still can have an rpg without the expression side, since combat is a way to express your character, but you cannot have one when all you do is express yourself without mechanics behind it, see facade.

 

[Roguey]

so that's a yes... also larping is role playing without mechanical effects to support it or emphasizing the flavor side of things over the substance side.

Yeah I know. Josh wants to do what he can to make LARPing actual RPing.

letting people express their character in conversation options that change the story isn't roleplaying as long as the character stats have no effect on it and it has no effect on character stats.

Yeah no, I disagree. Attributes and speech skills go in the dustbin because they're awful.

 

[bonescraper]

so that's a yes... also larping is role playing without mechanical effects to support it or emphasizing the flavor side of things over the substance side.

Yeah I know. Josh wants to do what he can to make LARPing actual RPing.

You should work for Russian state PR derpartment. They need people who know how to distort reality.

 

[SuicideBunny]

letting people express their character in conversation options that change the story isn't roleplaying as long as the character stats have no effect on it and it has no effect on character stats.

Yeah no, I disagree. Attributes and speech skills go in the dustbin because they're awful.

i don't get what you're saying here, since i never mentioned those. look at storm of zehir or alpha protocol for good tying together of mechanics and choices.

 

[Roguey]

i don't get what you're saying here, since i never mentioned those. look at storm of zehir or alpha protocol for good tying together of mechanics and choices.

I'm saying letting people express their character in conversation options is roleplaying regardless of whether or not stats are involved. You can make a lot of decisions in the likes of Fallout and Torment that don't touch anything other than indirect reactivity systems (a thing Josh supports).

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

Yeah no, I disagree. Attributes and speech skills go in the dustbin because they're awful.

Josh Sawyer's words of wisdom:

By this I mean not only the choices players must make at an obvious level—Strength vs. Charisma, fighter vs. rogue, sword vs. axe—but also, the criteria that drive those decisions. These criteria could be as broad as deciding between a character class that does a lot of damage in combat vs. a class that is great at navigating conversations.

Please don't tell me you're disagreeing with his Lordship, Roguey, it would ruin mah immershun on the Codex

 

[SuicideBunny]

what are indirect reactivity systems supposed to be? 'cost that sounds like bioware fake-chocies level larper bullshit to me.

 

[HiddenX]

No I'm not a game designer, but I'm an experienced software engineer for enterprise information systems for more than 25 years.

I was talking about the game designing side of things, so i don't really understand what you're trying to prove there. And if your point is "game designing is nothing outside of software engineering", then i'd answer a second time that if you can't figure a balanced gameplay system and its broad rules before software implementation, then you're just a poor excuse for a game designer. Because that's only supposed to be the basis of your job.
Of course there will always be iteration after that, but that makes all the difference between fine tuning and having to rewrite whole chunks of the game because you couldn't be bothered to properly flesh out the game's rules and their link to actual gameplay.

It is always good to have a good initial plan. But todays software is so complex that completely specifying it to fine detail is much to costly and worthless.
You rather work with small user stories and test cases for test driven development. And yes - if user stories / test cases don't work as intended or the customer simply doesn't like your implementation, you have to rewrite your code. Happens every day. Modern code should be written in a way that it can be flexibly changed, no big deal.
Much better than specifying too much too early, is getting feedback from the customers, beginning from the first prototypes.
Customers in game design in the early phases are story tellers, level designers, dialog designers etc. In later phases test-players, too.

 

[mondblut]

He's just using the wrong armor example here - misericordes were used against plate armours in such matter, striking through the various holes/joints of the armor.

All this "striking through joints" stuff was specifically designed and used to finish incapacitated enemies. Not to charge into a hedgehog of twohanded swords and glaives swinging a toothpick.

I see people who bring a knife to a gunfight did not change much through the centuries.

 

[Pope Amole II]

All this "striking through joints" stuff was specifically designed and used to finish incapacitated enemies. Not to charge into a hedgehog of twohanded swords and glaives swinging a toothpick.

And where do you see me stating the otherwise, smartass?