Editorial Josh Sawyer Explains: How to Balance an RPG

[Raghar]

Stealing/pickpocketing is typically broken because games think if you get caught picking pockets you suddenly live in Islamabad and the entire fucking town wants to murder you now. It's a disproportionate, grossly unrealistic response to the crime, and that response itself is the reason the skill invites save scumming and poor gameplay.

DEATH TO THIEVES.

 

[HiddenX]

This is only interesting and challenging if the game offers good and bad (non optimal) choice options, as well.

yeah, but those bad choices don't need to be in regard to the build. perfectly balanced builds can still be very diverse and require different things and amount of effort to master them. what balance does is make you aware that you sucking or having difficulties is because of something you do wrong but can still change without restarting, as opposed to asking yourself whether it's your build or your tactics, figuring out it's the former and then ragequitting because fuck those 30 hours you already put in.

I played many CRPGs in my life - and I only once had to restart a game, because I made a character that could not survive the game.
That was Elder Scrolls Adventure: Battlespire.
After 3 hours in the game it was clear that my original character had no chance.

In all other games I could adjust my character(s) over the course of the game, even when I made some bad decisions at character creation.

 

[Dreaad]

This is only interesting and challenging if the game offers good and bad (non optimal) choice options, as well.

yeah, but those bad choices don't need to be in regard to the build. perfectly balanced builds can still be very diverse and require different things and amount of effort to master them. what balance does is make you aware that you sucking or having difficulties is because of something you do wrong but can still change without restarting, as opposed to asking yourself whether it's your build or your tactics, figuring out it's the former and then ragequitting because fuck those 30 hours you already put in.

Aside from maybe .... an SMT game or some really old an obscure RPG from before I could read. Give me an example of a game you play 30 fucking hours of and then find out you're fucked because of your char choices? Honestly curious because I would love to play that game......

 

[Jasede]

Diablo 2 before respecs. I made a Necromancer that was complete garbage in higher difficulties as my first character.

But again, the whole fun in Diablo 2 is trying to optimize your build and figuring out what is most effective for any given patch. Imbalance = fun.

I dunno why people don't get this. Here's what a perfectly balanced fighting game looks like: every character is Ryu. Look, it's fair now!

 

[Cosmo]

Diablo 2 before respecs. I made a Necromancer that was complete garbage in higher difficulties as my first character.

But again, the whole fun in Diablo 2 is trying to optimize your build and figuring out what is most effective for any given patch. Imbalance = fun.

I dunno why people don't get this. Here's what a perfectly balanced fighting game looks like: every character is Ryu. Look, it's fair now!

People don't "get" this because this idea of balance is a complete fallacy and a caricature. And in Diablo 2, effectiveness of a character is not decided by the powers you chose as single entities, but by the synergy between them. You can totally import this idea of synergy from a single character (Diablo 2) to a team of characters (PoE) and end up with something where, from a pool of balanced character powers you can choose from, you have room to fiddle and find something that works particularly well as a whole.

 

[SuicideBunny]

Here's what a perfectly balanced fighting game looks like: every character is Ryu. Look, it's fair now!

so because you can do balance in a lazy and half-assed manner you should forsake any attempt to balance things?

 

[FeelTheRads]

Padded armor suffers even worse in most RPGs: in many games, there are literally no worse options than padded. The suits are often aesthetically ugly and mechanically awful—the quintessence of a pure RPG trash option—and if players are forced to wear padded armor at the game's opening, they'll gladly ditch it as soon as anything else becomes available. In Pillars of Eternity, padded armor actually offers reasonably good protection. It can easily be argued that our padded armor is more protective than is realistic, but the first goal is not verisimilitude, but justifying the player's interest.

Would you say this is a caricature or completely serious business?

find something that works particularly well as a whole.

No, according to balancefags that would mean the rest of the options are trash if there's one that works "particularly well" .

To me, if a veteran player would never tag a certain skill, then there's something wrong with it.

1. In any build you can tag only 3 skills. The majority will remain untagged and you won't get to use them all and in some you'll invest more than in others. What does this tell you? Any skill that wasn't tagged is trash?
2. Tagging a skill or not has no bearing on whether that skill is useful or trash or anywhere in between. You tag those skills so you get bonus points to them, that's all. Some skills are not worthy of being tagged, but can still be useful.

 

[Jasede]

@Bunny
No, it's not. I am using hyperbole to stress a point. There is no such thing as perfect balance. And even the tenuous balance you look for is very difficult to achieve: just look how many patches it took Blizzard to get Starcraft right, and they worked on that for years and years. You think it's easy to 'balance' things when in truth it's next to impossible and an on-going, difficult process that is influenced by emerging meta-games. All this work could be put to better use in other aspects of an RPG, considering 'balance' has never been a traditional part of it. Yes, daggers only do 1d4. What's the problem? Maybe you want to play a guy who kills things with daggers because you think it's cool. Maybe you want to handicap yourself because you know the game inside and out and want an extra challenge. Your idea of balance is that all weapons, for example, shine in certain situations, that, over the length of the game, they are all viable choices. I think that's a pipe-dream not even an army of beta-testers can realize and a state that isn't even desirable.

 

[Infinitron]

Out of the design shop, youngsters. Seriously, we've put men on the moon but balancing an RPG is impossible? Get out of here with that Luddite bullshit.

Maybe you want to play a guy who kills things with daggers because you think it's cool.

Indeed, and therefore:

There are two levels at which players generally make these sorts of decisions. The first is aesthetic and conceptual: "Wizards are cool." "Clubs are boring." "Being strong owns."

The second is mechanical/rational: "High damage is important." "Gotta have a healer." "Debuff effects can make a huge difference in fights."

Different players balance these desires differently, but ideally an aesthetic choice will always map to a viable build, and a viable build will map to something players will find cool for their character.

 

[Cosmo]

Padded armor suffers even worse in most RPGs: in many games, there are literally no worse options than padded. The suits are often aesthetically ugly and mechanically awful—the quintessence of a pure RPG trash option—and if players are forced to wear padded armor at the game's opening, they'll gladly ditch it as soon as anything else becomes available. In Pillars of Eternity, padded armor actually offers reasonably good protection. It can easily be argued that our padded armor is more protective than is realistic, but the first goal is not verisimilitude, but justifying the player's interest.

Would you say this is a caricature or completely serious business?

I'd say you simply don't (want to) understand : despite both being valid choices, there's still a fundamental difference between padded and plate, making each subpar or optimal according to your character build.

 

[HiddenX]

Jasede, couldn't say it better. It seems we approach CRPGs the same way.

Infinitron

youngsters

ideally an aesthetic choice will always map to a viable build and a viable build will map to something players will find cool for their character

Not everything needs to end cool and awesome in a game.
I like it when the game kicks me in the ass from time to time and I have to adjust, get it Sawyer?

 

[Roguey]

Yeah, how about "faction reputation", as that's what that is and how everyone else calls it? It's also shorter and self-explanatory.

A single person is not a faction. Alignment is not a faction. Your own character's personality is not a faction.

This system describes things like Alpha Protocol's perks, Dungeon Siege 3's deeds, and Divinity: Original Sin's traits which don't involve factions or reputations.

I'm traumatized by obtuse terms for simple things, reminds me too much of marketing-speak.

lol @ thinking "indirect reaction system" is obtuse, or that JES has the personality of a marketer as if he's trying to sell this idea to fans instead of using it for the benefit of other developers (in a talk he gave to other developers). Using the word "faction" or "reputation" is too imprecise.

Though tbqh I don't know why he doesn't compartmentalize it into "scripted and systematic reactions" since that does in fact get the point across in fewer words. That Josh and his languages.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Maybe you want to play a guy who kills things with daggers because you think it's cool.

There's not even a need for that to make daggers "useful".
You can make them useful at the start of the game, by limiting other types of weapons available. Or limit what classes can use what weapons. Or do weapon proficiencies.
Of course, with Sawyer's "EVERYBODY CAN USE ANYTHING ANYTIME" that's not actually possible.

making each a good choice or not according to your character build situation.

Yes, padded is a good choice at the start of the game and plate later on. Problem? Or limit what classes can use what armor. But no.. because see above.

Careful with oldman Infinitron and his wise sayings. Did you know "People only explore to clear the fog of war" and "Quests are the game, combat is not"? Infinitron can teach you stuff like that.

 

[Cosmo]

Of course, with Sawyer's "EVERYBODY CAN USE ANYTHING ANYTIME" that's not actually possible.

Another fallacy : wizards in PoE will have to make substantial sacrifices to be effective with traditional fighter garb. Thus an arbitrary impossibility is traded for a "buffer" or a soft limit, and nothing of value was lost.

 

[HiddenX]

PS:
A dagger 1d4

...can be useful for a character that has not enough strength to hold a sword.

...can be useful when it can be used as a throwing weapon, too.

...can be useful, because it has a higher attack speed.

...can be useful, because I can hide it and backstab with it.

...can be useful to open a fish tin can.

...

be creative.

 

[Infinitron]

PS:
A dagger 1d4

...can be useful, because he has a higher attack speed.

be creative.

http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Dagger

Speed: Fast

Bonus: Increased Accuracy.

Well, how about that.

 

[HiddenX]

Well, how about that.

It's a good start. Diversity is king in CRPGs not equalizing chances with each possible character build.

 

[set]

And it sucks, as a result. Who needs accuracy when you're wielding a dagger? You have it in droves. Almost universally, hit chance in RPGs is a mediocre stat - mechanics seldom allow players to get to a situation where they have sub 50% hit rate, where increasing hit rate suddenly becomes significantly important. In an ARPG, small increases in hit rate make a big difference over long periods of time, but in a crpg hit rate is never that important or worth focusing on.

 

[SuicideBunny]

@Bunny
No, it's not.

what isn't what? 'cos that makes no sense as an answer to either one of my posts.

I am using hyperbole to stress a point. There is no such thing as perfect balance.

sure there isn't, but it's a thing worth striving towards and rather than making fun of josh seeming claiming otherwise (in regards to there being no perfect balance) and trying to prove how good he is at balancing, you ridicule the very concept, which strikes me as just stupid, considering that balancing is such an integral part of game design that you do it right from the start, before you even write anything down, just by not thinking about certain combinations because they are so damn ridiculous that they aren't worth thinking about.

You think it's easy to 'balance' things when in truth it's next to impossible and an on-going, difficult process that is influenced by emerging meta-games.

never said that. i just said that making everything samey is the lazy way to balance stuff, and thus implied that not all balanced stuff has to be samey, and as such the alternative to not be lazy and thus more difficult.

All this work could be put to better use in other aspects of an RPG, considering 'balance' has never been a traditional part of it.

maybe i'm alone in this, but considering that balancing wargames was always an ongoing and important effort, pnp evolved from them, that one of the main reasons for (and promise of) new editions and revisions and even entire rulesets of pnp games is balancing (also moar money), a developer starts balancing just by thinking about the game (whether pnp or computer), and pretty much every group on this green planet instinctively balances through house rules, i would say that balance and balancing is a much more fundamental aspect of rpgs (and any genre where applicable) than actual role playing.

Yes, daggers only do 1d4. What's the problem? Maybe you want to play a guy who kills things with daggers because you think it's cool. Maybe you want to handicap yourself because you know the game inside and out and want an extra challenge. Your idea of balance is that all weapons, for example, shine in certain situations, that, over the length of the game, they are all viable choices. I think that's a pipe-dream not even an army of beta-testers can realize and a state that isn't even desirable.

cool and entirely made-up story, bro.

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

Well, how about that.

It's a good start. Diversity is king in CRPGs not equalizing chances with each possible character build.

Here are the one handed-weapons in POE, fast one-handed attack more regularly and larger do a bit more damage. So a dagger does the same damage as a flail, club etc, and every weapon has a balanced bonus of some sort:

Fast one-handed Damage Damage Type Bonus
Stilettos[25] 10-16 Pierce Negates a value of Damage Threshold on the target.
Rapiers[22] 10-16 Pierce Increased Accuracy.
Flails[26] 10-16 Crush Negates some of the deflection bonus of a shield.
Clubs[27] 10-16 Crush Increased Accuracy.
Daggers[28][29] 10-16 Slash Increased Accuracy.
Hatchets[30] 10-16 Slash Small amount of bonus Deflection.

Larger one-handed Damage Damage Type Bonus
Spears[31] 13-21 Pierce Increased Accuracy.
War hammers[32] 13-21 Crush/Pierce Uses the more advantageous of two damage types.
Maces[33] 13-21 Crush Negates a value of Damage Threshold on the target.
Battle axes[30] 13-21 Slash Increased damage on critical hits.
Sabre[34] 13-21 Slash every time they do damage, they inflict also damage over time.
Swords[34] 13-21 Slash/Pierce Uses the more advantageous of two damage types.

 

[Infinitron]

Beautiful, isn't it? But you forgot to put down the speed of each weapon type.

every weapon has a balanced bonus of some sort:

Define "balanced bonus" - I get the feeling you're using that word as a pejorative, as if those bonuses mean that there's no real choices to make here.

When you're up against an enemy that's hard to hit, your Dagger will come in handy. But if the enemy is a hard hitter, you'll be wondering if a Hatchet to give yourself some deflection instead wouldn't have been nice.

 

[Shannow]

What?!? And force the player to use a sub-optimal builds in certain situations/against certain enemies? That...that's trash. That's bullshit trash!! *lots of teeth gnashing*
(Or is the player supposed to change weapon loadout on the fly?)

This is why I dislike arguing in vacuume without concrete examples. As soon as examples are given suddenly all the stuff us "grognards" have been saying the whole time - if with a different perspective; in respect to classes, spell, power curves, etc. - is validated and we can all go back to being a happy Hivemind. (Or not. My bets are on "not".)

 

[Carrion]

Nobody deliberately designs trash options, at least not in the main mechanics. They simply happen.
Remember Arcanum? Game tells you right in the intro that GUNS ARE AWESOME! And hell, guns are awesome, right? One shot and BLAM! YOu're dead!
Except that's not how it works in the game. Guns suck in Arcanum until you get the Hand Cannon. Its one thing to put five bullets into a man to kill him, having to put fifteen is another.

I don't know, being a gunslinger was the most interesting way to play the game, even if guns were criminally underpowered, poorly done and probably the worst option overall. I actually liked how they tried to balance guns in Arcanum through resource management, which is something that I always wanted to see in Fallout. Just think of Mad Max 2 and those few precious shotgun shells ― even if a gun would be by far the best option in combat, there's no way you could rely on it in every situation due to the scarcity of ammunition. Instead you'd probably want to learn how to defend yourself in other ways, just in case (in Arcanum I used throwing weapons, which are usually damn near useless in any game). I find this kind of approach much more interesting than what Sawyer is doing, even if we all know that Arcanum failed spectacularly when it came to balance.

There are plenty of reasons why people would choose daggers even if they weren't a viable option in open combat. They're easy to conceal and quick to draw (ideal for assassin-type characters) and can be used as tools in various ways (prying open containers, skinning animals, crafting basic stuff from wood, doing field surgery etc.). I don't know why they even should be a direct substitute for an actual sword or axe.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Beautiful, isn't it?

Nope, boring as shit.

But you forgot to put down the speed of each weapon type.

Which probably hardly matters at all.

as if those bonuses mean that there's no real choices to make here.

There aren't. Fake choices are fake choices.

When you're up against an enemy that's hard to hit, your Dagger will come in handy. But if the enemy is a hard hitter, you'll be wondering if a Hatchet to give yourself some deflection instead wouldn't have been nice.

Or you'll be wondering, wouldn't it be nice if I got some powerful unique with special abilities with which I can crack open the skull of this "hard hitter" rather than just hit him with the same shitty damage, but just taking less damage myself.
Oh yeah, you'll be wondering if it wouldn't be nice to play another game instead.

 

[SymbolicFrank]

Question: If you have a sleek engine, do you think it's better to expand and tweak that all the time (make it more complex), or just keep it simple and add unique things on top that violate the rules?