Interview Project Eternity Interview @ Irontower

[hiver]

Balance does not exclude moments of "badassery". The biggest "imbalance" in BG's case was that once you found a good routine, you'd practically repeat it ad nauseam. And then for some less sensible builds the "challenge" forced you to cheese every endgame encounter instead of providing a viable approach to it.

Balance or Inbalance has nothing to do with applying the same tactic over and over. It's an encounter design issue. And it is my opinion that BG2 had good encounter design. I had about 5 or 6 good routines that I would use ad nauseam depending on the encounter. I can't think of one RPG where every encounter needs a new aproach, "balanced" or otherwise.

Yes, but thats the other edge of the sword. Encounter design must be exceptional to follow design of the more viable, different options in tactic approaches. It must follow it in a way where it provides, allows and limits options provided - as necessary, as appropriate, since done badly all options will be viable in every situation, which is as bad as having too few or none. And it all must be dependent on skills, of course.

 

[Hormalakh]

It worries me though that he is a balance freak. In BG2+TOB

Um that was a high level campaign. Even Sawyer acknowledges that it's totally impossible to balance a game with a lot of customization when the levels are that high. Given enough expansions/sequels, you'll get what you want.

Even then, I'd argue that you should go for balance. If you're a in a high-level game like BG2:TOB, you shouldn't even be worrying yourself with low-level encounters. Your challenges should be more difficult too, naturally. That would still be balanced. I shouldn't be fighting one dragon at a time; I should be fighting 3 or 4. TOB did this in places, but needed to do more of this - not just at "boss levels." You're practically a god mid-way through TOB, why are you still fighting the rabble?

 

[Lord Andre]

My worry with Sawyer being a balance freak is not about me not having the possibility to become a god and piss on every encounter. That would be stupid.

I'm worried that balance between the classes from a combat power perspective will ruin the flavor, the fluff and the "organic" feeling that the fantasy world in question should have. For example, at higher levels the mage should be overpowered in comparison to a thief or a fighter. That is "organic" to the world's rules/flavour. If the mage is just an archer who shoots blue projectiles then it is not organic.
Another example would be how in many games the villain can teleport away at will with magic but the player's mage is unable to replicate such a spell. That's just annoying and breaks immersion.
Another example would be the following situation: I walk into a spider's den and my party gets trapped in the webs. As a mage I want to cast a very weak fireball type spell that would burn the webs away but would be so weak that it leaves my party relatively unscathed. If I am a mage it makes no sense that i cannot control the force of my own spells.

Conclusion I want an rpg to have a world that feels organic, that obeys its own rules in a way that makes sense. If I am the greatest
pick-lock that ever walked the earth then I don't give a fuck this chest is quest related and needs a quest related key, I WILL pick the lock.

So, I like classes being balanced but I do not want said balance to lead to situations like those stated above.

 

[hiver]

Depends on what magic system you have - and yes, encounter/world design. All three systems must work together and overlap and influence one another in a right way, for the player to have the end result like you talk about.

If the mage is just an archer who shoots blue projectiles then it is not organic.

What if on higher levels a mage can buff the rest of the party in different ways and add "blue glow" to archers arrows?
- if an enemy fails a saving throw against coolness he looses a turn and goes "hey... thats cool..." instead. - im joking.

Youre thinking about basic D&D systems and - which lead into situations like you described.

it is not about just balancing stats - it is about providing situations where other classes and skills can shine, be useful as much as other skills are in different situations.

No wonder some classes get overpowered when all you do in the game is combat.

 

[Roguey]

For example, at higher levels the mage should be overpowered in comparison to a thief or a fighter.

No. Magic works differently here, all the classes can draw on their soul power.

 

[Lord Andre]

For example, at higher levels the mage should be overpowered in comparison to a thief or a fighter.

No. Magic works differently here, all the classes can draw on their soul power.

You mean my mage can cast Fire 10 and deal 1000 damage and my fighter can do Omnislash and deal 1000 damage. OUTSTANDING !

I'm expecting more than JRPG fagottry from Obsidian so that's probably NOT how soul power works.

 

[Roguey]

You mean my mage can cast Fire 10 and deal 1000 damage and my fighter can do Omnislash and deal 1000 damage.

"Though it may not look like it to see them in battle next to wizards and priests, fighters are just as able to tap into the power of their souls to devastating effect: accelerating their attacks to a superhuman speed, striking foes with such power that nearby opponents are knocked off their feet, and maintaining a phenomenal endurance that allows them to rapidly bounce back from even terrible wounds."

 

[Lord Andre]

You mean my mage can cast Fire 10 and deal 1000 damage and my fighter can do Omnislash and deal 1000 damage.

"Though it may not look like it to see them in battle next to wizards and priests, fighters are just as able to tap into the power of their souls to devastating effect: accelerating their attacks to a superhuman speed, striking foes with such power that nearby opponents are knocked off their feet, and maintaining a phenomenal endurance that allows them to rapidly bounce back from even terrible wounds."

Yes, well, I will hope against hope that Cloud's Sword is not in the game.

 

[Infinitron]

You mean my mage can cast Fire 10 and deal 1000 damage and my fighter can do Omnislash and deal 1000 damage.

"Though it may not look like it to see them in battle next to wizards and priests, fighters are just as able to tap into the power of their souls to devastating effect: accelerating their attacks to a superhuman speed, striking foes with such power that nearby opponents are knocked off their feet, and maintaining a phenomenal endurance that allows them to rapidly bounce back from even terrible wounds."

That's just fluff, though.

"striking foes with such power that nearby opponents are knocked off their feet" - you mean like D&D Knockdown?

 

[Grunker]

I am certainly with Roguey here. The last thing we want is the terrors of AD&D and 3.5 where Wizards simply scale out of control after level 5, and the fighter becomes useless. Active combat abilities are the key for everyone here, and Pathfinder/Book of Nine Swords shows that there is plenty of room to make non-casters scale without turning them into casters.

 

[Hormalakh]

Look I know this is RPGCodex and all, but honestly what you're talking about Lord Andre has nothing to do with balance, and I intend to prove it using an RTS. You're talking about diversity in classes and that's fine. But being balanced is not about who gets to shoot out massive damage points from their ass. It has to do with how each class plays differently.

An example of this would be Starcraft and its successor Starcraft 2. In that game, you have 3 races that play completely differently, but they all have different play styles. If you're familiar with the games, get acquainted then come back. I'm waiting... Ok. So the way you play with the Zerg isn't at all how you play as the Terran or the Protoss. One requires you to expand out massively and win by swarming your opponents. Terrans, on the other hand, play by usually first "turtling" (or blocking off their base from an initial assault) and building up technology to attack their foes. Protoss on the other hand have strong units initially, but are very resource heavy. Now this is a very rudimentary look at the three very DIFFERENT but BALANCED races in starcraft. In fact, players geenerally stick with one race just because of the massive amount of tactical knowledge there is to learn with just one race to play effectively.

Classes in D&D based RPGs should be the same way - they should all feel different in how you play them, but ultimately they should all be balanced against one another. No mage should, just because he's a mage, be able to defeat a bard or a warrior. Tactical strategy and proper utilization of skills and abilities from that class should do that.

This is what the definition of balance is.

 

[Jasede]

Classes don't have to be balanced at all in P&P or RPGs.

Besides, you can easily argue Fighters always were balanced in AD&D: wizards would never become as powerful as they do without them to carry them through the first bunch of levels - incidentally, the most interesting levels.

Level 5+ fighters are far from useless even though they of course don't hold a candle to wizards. But then they have had to suffer through levels where they had a grand total of 3 crummy spells to cast, along with HP rolls that ensure instant death during the early game should anyone trigger a trap or even if they just catch an errant arrow. Balance.

It's like fighting games. If they were balanced properly they'd have 8 characters only: Ryu, Ryu, Ryu, Ryu, Ryu, Ryu, Ryu and Ryu.

...one of the best parts of older D&D is that wizards become out of control. One of the most fun things about it, actually. Don't break with tradition, especially one that works so well.

 

[Grunker]

It somehow amazes me how this place always screams for tactical RPGs but then sings the praises of AD&D's fighters, the very antithesis to the concept of 'tactical'. It is literally one of the most limited and shallow type of character you can play in a combat situation in almost any system.

 

[Infinitron]

sings the praises of AD&D's fighters, the very antithesis to the concept of 'tactical'.

What? Why? Not having special abilities doesn't make them untactical. It just makes them simple grunts, like the pawns on a chessboard. You can still use pawns tactically.

 

[Grunker]

sings the praises of AD&D's fighters, the very antithesis to the concept of 'tactical'.

What? Why? Not having special abilities doesn't make them untactical. It just makes them simple grunts, like the pawns on a chessboard. You can still use pawns tactically.

When you control a chess-team, you control 8 pawns beyond all the other shit. When you P&P a fighter, you control that guy. All you will ever do is perfom the functions of a pawn. You will almost never have tactical depth, unless you don't play by the rules of course and makes shit up as you go (which many P&P tables do, which is cool), but that's not relevant to this discussion.

 

[Hormalakh]

Classes don't have to be balanced at all in P&P or RPGs.
Besides, you can easily argue Fighters always were balanced in AD&D: wizards would never become as powerful as they do without them to carry them through the first bunch of levels - incidentally, the most interesting levels.

This doesn't take away from the fact that classes should be balanced throughout the game. Classes shouldn't be "low-level classes", "mid-level classes", and "high-level classes." If you advocate that, then you should advocate respec. At higher-levels fighters should be wizards. And this is exactly what happens. People start to multiclass because they start to realize how little their class can offer.

Level 5+ fighters are far from useless even though they of course don't hold a candle to wizards. But then they have had to suffer through levels where they had a grand total of 3 crummy spells to cast, along with HP rolls that ensure instant death during the early game should anyone trigger a trap or even if they just catch an errant arrow. Balance.

Then I would suggest BALANCING the classes so that while they play differently at all levels, they are effective members of the party at any level.

It's like fighting games. If they were balanced properly they'd have 8 characters only: Ryu, Ryu, Ryu, Ryu, Ryu, Ryu, Ryu and Ryu.

...one of the best parts of older D&D is that wizards become out of control. One of the most fun things about it, actually. Don't break with tradition, especially one that works so well.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. Fighting games ARE balanced in that each fighter plays differently! The only unbalanced fighter that is famous for his imbalance is Akira! The other fighters all play differently and have different tactics involved with them. If they weren't balanced in their differences everyone would play Ryu - especially at tournament and pro levels. This isn't the case at all. Dhalsim, Zangief, and Ryu all play differently. Some are closer combat, some are further "long-distance" combat. They totally play differently. Ask any good Street Fighter player.

You're wrong.

-----

I'm not sure how you guys feel about this, but some of those shitty RTSs that spawned games like DOTA figured out some of this stuff and I'm surprised that D&D still hasn't. There are a bunch of different heroes in those DOTA games (and Warcraft 3, its predecessor) and they all play differently, with different abilities. And some of them, like Warcraft 3, have leveling concepts. Yet, there is no "good" hero to choose from - or an imbalanced one. Each one plays differently, but has a use.

The only difference is that D&D is a much more complex game and has to maintain balance over a wider range of choices that players can make - wider skills, classes, levels, ablilites - there are a bunch of switches and levers in this crazy machine that we call D&D. This is difficult, yes, but it is also what can make an RPG so much more interest as a tactical combat scenario.

 

[Infinitron]

sings the praises of AD&D's fighters, the very antithesis to the concept of 'tactical'.

What? Why? Not having special abilities doesn't make them untactical. It just makes them simple grunts, like the pawns on a chessboard. You can still use pawns tactically.

When you control a chess-team, you control 8 pawns beyond all the other shit. When you P&P a fighter, you control that guy. All you will ever do is perfom the functions of a pawn. You will almost never have tactical depth, unless you don't play by the rules of course and makes shit up as you go (which many P&P tables do, which is cool), but that's not relevant to this discussion.

Why? Even in P&P, you can cooperate with your fellow fighters to create tactical formations and such.

Anyway, it could be in that in practice fighters in AD&D were usually not played tactically, but I don't think the concept of an ability-less grunt is inherently "untactical".

 

[Hormalakh]

Unless your fighter can use an ability to become 8 little fighters, or other abilities to make interesting tactical choices, then the fighter is a pawn. This is why warriors starting getting more tactical abilities in 3e and 4e. They started being useful over a wider range of scenarios.

 

[St. Toxic]

A wall can be tactical, even without a special "Collapse" ability.

DOTA games (and Warcraft 3, its successor)

Also this.

 

[Grunker]

sings the praises of AD&D's fighters, the very antithesis to the concept of 'tactical'.

What? Why? Not having special abilities doesn't make them untactical. It just makes them simple grunts, like the pawns on a chessboard. You can still use pawns tactically.

When you control a chess-team, you control 8 pawns beyond all the other shit. When you P&P a fighter, you control that guy. All you will ever do is perfom the functions of a pawn. You will almost never have tactical depth, unless you don't play by the rules of course and makes shit up as you go (which many P&P tables do, which is cool), but that's not relevant to this discussion.

Why? Even in P&P, you can cooperate with your fellow fighters to create tactical formations and such.

Just like you in all those deeper, more tactical fighter-roles in other RPGs you mean?

 

[GordonHalfman]

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. Fighting games ARE balanced in that each fighter plays differently! The only unbalanced fighter that is famous for his imbalance is Akira! The other fighters all play differently and have different tactics involved with them. If they weren't balanced in their differences everyone would play Ryu - especially at tournament and pro levels. This isn't the case at all. Dhalsim, Zangief, and Ryu all play differently. Some are closer combat, some are further "long-distance" combat. They totally play differently. Ask any good Street Fighter player.

The fighting game analogy is interesting, but I don't think it makes the point you want it to make. The ideal is to make characters that are equally strong with powerful interesting abilities and diverse strengths and weaknesses, but it never actually works out that way since these two goals are obviously in conflict. Every version of street fighter has characters who are uncontroversially better than others, and there's no obvious relationship between how balanced a game is and how popular it becomes. People are generally ok with a game having stuff that is stronger than other stuff, as long as it's not so strong as to make the game trivial and boring. This is going to be doubly true for RPGs, apart from the fact that they aren't competitive games they're also not games about repeating a single fixed scenario.

 

[Hormalakh]

I don't have an issue with strength being relegated to increases in levels. Strength shouldn't be relegated to changes in classes. That's how RPGs would be tactically interesting. If fighting games are not absolutely balanced, the creators intention was not to keep it unbalanced. The main intent is to balance them as much as possible. If they succeed, then those games are utilized in multiplayer settings as a tournament game or an ESport. If they do not, these games are usually played, but once the "puzzle" is solved - they are relegated to the trash bin, or modified to continue to be interesting for more experienced players. In the fighting game analogy, this is equivalent to how some "tournament rules" have been put in place to keep the game balanced.

Edit: There is also the idea of "perceived imbalance" or fuzzy imbalance. This would be where a certain class/race/fighter is perceived to be either weaker/stronger but that requires a completely different way of thinking to "balance" him. It isn't supposed to be rock/paper/scissors balance. That still requires balance though.

 

[Roguey]

That's just fluff, though.

"striking foes with such power that nearby opponents are knocked off their feet" - you mean like D&D Knockdown?

We've danced this dance before and as I pointed out back then, nearby opponents are knocked off their feet. You knock the whole group over like bowling pins with your momentary, incredible superhuman strength.

Anyway Josh said that he doesn't want the classes to be as homogenized as they are in 4e D&D ("With 11 classes, we have a lot of challenges. The ones I'm focused on are ensuring each class feels distinct, has genuine value to the player, can be built in myriad distinct ways, and does not rely on obtuse UI elements to function. 4E's classes are more homogenized than we will shoot for. I think our classes and level progression options will fall somewhere between 3.5E and 4E.") and you did have a formspring convo with him where he said he wanted the pacing of the classes to be asynchronous and that whether a character is high or low maintenance depends on how you build them.

 

[Infinitron]

Yeah, yeah.

 

[Grunker]

I don't think anyone is interested in repeating that part of 4th. It's just that whenever someone mentions using one or two good things from 4th, some will go into rage-mode saying "BUT FOURTH EDITION WAS SHIT, HOW CAN ANYTHING IN IT BE RELEVANT?!"