The Most Overlooked, and Most Important Elements of an RPG

[Stun]

The whole point of these games is to have a reactive world and great player choice. This sentiment flies entirely in the face of that. RPGs are balanced to make all classes equal so that people can play whatever classes they want. Specifically balancing to be uneven is the exact opposite of what these games are aiming for. What if I don't want to be forced to include a wizard in all my parties? It completely defeats the whole notion of having a range of classes to choose from if you then railroad people into an optimal party makeup. And besides, you liked wizards but what if uneven party balance existed... And heavily emphasised the neccesity of making sure you had a sword-and-board fighter leading every party? Would you be so in favour of it then? (Incidentally, I'm pretty sure the IE games didn't have uneven class balance intentionally...)

Disagree. An RPG doesn't need class equality to fully deliver the player choice you're describing. Or at least the Infinity engine games didn't. Despite there being nothing even resembing class balance in those games, they still managed to make Soloing any character build a completely viable route (for example). And They accomplished this in a myriad of ways. From magic items, to dual-classing, to multi-classing to the D&D rules system itself (ie. a stoneskinned opponent can still take damage from a flaming sword. The sheer number of classes, class abilities, class combinations, and spells was nigh infinite, etc.)

 

In other words, to answer your questions of "what if I don't want a wizard. or a sword and board tank?", the answer is: don't use them. Again, I once soloed BG2, from beginning to end, with an armorless Kensai. And by chapter 3 he had become completely overpowered. In another Playthrough I rolled up a Sorcerer then took Viconia (a cleric) with me. Same result: it was a bit of a struggle early, but by about chapter 3/4 the game ceased being a challenge.

 

The problem I have with rigid class equality across the board is that it makes the game feel overly restrictive and one dimensional in the course of multiple playthroughs. I mean, what's the point in trying out a different character class when you know the challenge will be exactly the same and the power ceiling will be totally unchanged? That, and what's the logic, exactly, in insuring that every class in an RPG is perfectly balanced? Is that the way it is in real life? Is the President of the United States equal in power to the burger flipper at McDonalds?

Edited June 2, 2013 by Stun

[hairyscotsman2]

In other words, to answer your questions of "what if I don't want a wizard. or a sword and board tank?", the answer is: don't use them

I thnk you've missed the point Stun. I think Eiphel was referring to those games that expect you to take a Wizard or give an inherent advantage to having a sword and board warrior in your party. The more imbalance is encouraged the more likely encounter auto-wins occur and all the effort that went into designing the other classes loses significance. It reduces the value of parts of the design. Now I was referring to seeing those same class design flaws resulting in characters that steal the show at a game table. It's more annoying there but the same principle applies. Having one class significantly more powerful at higher levels that the other classes in the party makes the other characters less significant to the gameplay. I don't expect classes to be 'exactly' balanced but a degree of parity is important to me. LWQW does not a pretty picture make from levels 1 to 20. Some d20 groups only played levels 7 to 12 to avoid the worst of the imbalances created, thus the entire 13th level+ rules for characters may as well not have been printed as far as those groups were concerned.

Edited June 2, 2013 by hairyscotsman2

[ultimis]

 

In other words, to answer your questions of "what if I don't want a wizard. or a sword and board tank?", the answer is: don't use them

I thnk you've missed the point Stun. I think Eiphel was referring to those games that expect you to take a Wizard or give an inherent advantage to having a sword and board warrior in your party. The more imbalance is encouraged the more likely encounter auto-wins occur and all the effort that went into designing the other classes loses significance. It reduces the value of parts of the design. Now I was referring to seeing those same class design flaws resulting in characters that steal the show at a game table. It's more annoying there but the same principle applies. Having one class significantly more powerful at higher levels that the other classes in the party makes the other characters less significant to the gameplay. I don't expect classes to be 'exactly' balanced but a degree of parity is important to me. LWQW does not a pretty picture make from levels 1 to 20. Some d20 groups only played levels 7 to 12 to avoid the worst of the imbalances created, thus the entire 13th level+ rules for characters may as well not have been printed as far as those groups were concerned.

 

 

Just because a wizard is by far the most powerful solo class, doesn't mean it is best for groups. That also doesn't mean that the game is balanced for a wizard or that the wizard would be easy to play (such as AOE hurting allies, slow casting times, squishy). There can also be "special encounters" that can be introduced specifically to penalized wizards (such as magic resistant Golems, or witch hunter type enemies good at shutting down magic casters). So while the wizard is by far the most "powerful" of classes, there are some glaring weaknesses that can be exploited.

 

The whole "class balance" thing is not hugely relevant in a world where different classes are not actually equal. Now there is something to be said that each class should bring a different "flavor" to the game. Different play style, different group dynamics, different strategies.

[hairyscotsman2]

Just because a wizard is by far the most powerful solo class, doesn't mean it is best for groups. That also doesn't mean that the game is balanced for a wizard or that the wizard would be easy to play (such as AOE hurting allies, slow casting times, squishy). There can also be "special encounters" that can be introduced specifically to penalized wizards (such as magic resistant Golems, or witch hunter type enemies good at shutting down magic casters). So while the wizard is by far the most "powerful" of classes, there are some glaring weaknesses that can be exploited.

 

The whole "class balance" thing is not hugely relevant in a world where different classes are not actually equal. Now there is something to be said that each class should bring a different "flavor" to the game. Different play style, different group dynamics, different strategies.

 

And again you're not quite getting the whole point. I apologise for not explaining myself better. There is an inherent problem to older d20 game and class design that flaws the game by making spell casting classes disproportionally powerful and making all "lesser" classes less interesting to play. And the flaw is that anything cool a player character can do is almost always implemented as a spell. Not a power, not an ability but a spell (I know there's some exceptions, quite a few but there's a HUGE amount of spells).

I was reading a p&p rpg forum earlier about how to make fighters more interesting at higher levels. What some of the people posting came to realise was, that in both 3.x and 4e, the same idea for a power/spell was put in both systems. The shared basic concept was that you could temporarily Dominate someone by Grabbing them and holding a weapon to their throat. 4e implemented it as a power available at 9th level to the Escaped Slave theme that any class could take. 3.x implemented it as a cleric spell, because it had to be a spell because it was 3.x. based and everything great has to be available as a spell. (I KNOW 4e has it's own failings PLEASE do not derail the thread)

What I am also pointing out is that in-built class imbalance is a design flaw inherent to older d20 systems and one that IMO cannot be fixed from within. Hence my admiration for Obsidian in creating their own system.

Edited June 2, 2013 by hairyscotsman2

[mcmanusaur]

 

The whole point of these games is to have a reactive world and great player choice. This sentiment flies entirely in the face of that. RPGs are balanced to make all classes equal so that people can play whatever classes they want. Specifically balancing to be uneven is the exact opposite of what these games are aiming for. What if I don't want to be forced to include a wizard in all my parties? It completely defeats the whole notion of having a range of classes to choose from if you then railroad people into an optimal party makeup. And besides, you liked wizards but what if uneven party balance existed... And heavily emphasised the neccesity of making sure you had a sword-and-board fighter leading every party? Would you be so in favour of it then? (Incidentally, I'm pretty sure the IE games didn't have uneven class balance intentionally...)

Disagree. An RPG doesn't need class equality to fully deliver the player choice you're describing. Or at least the Infinity engine games didn't. Despite there being nothing even resembing class balance in those games, they still managed to make Soloing any character build a completely viable route (for example). And They accomplished this in a myriad of ways. From magic items, to dual-classing, to multi-classing to the D&D rules system itself (ie. a stoneskinned opponent can still take damage from a flaming sword. The sheer number of classes, class abilities, class combinations, and spells was nigh infinite, etc.)

 

In other words, to answer your questions of "what if I don't want a wizard. or a sword and board tank?", the answer is: don't use them. Again, I once soloed BG2, from beginning to end, with an armorless Kensai. And by chapter 3 he had become completely overpowered. In another Playthrough I rolled up a Sorcerer then took Viconia (a cleric) with me. Same result: it was a bit of a struggle early, but by about chapter 3/4 the game ceased being a challenge.

 

The problem I have with rigid class equality across the board is that it makes the game feel overly restrictive and one dimensional in the course of multiple playthroughs. I mean, what's the point in trying out a different character class when you know the challenge will be exactly the same and the power ceiling will be totally unchanged? That, and what's the logic, exactly, in insuring that every class in an RPG is perfectly balanced? Is that the way it is in real life? Is the President of the United States equal in power to the burger flipper at McDonalds?

 

 

Balanced and identical are two different things. Even if the level of challenge is the same, the experience can still be completely different since you must tackle the problems in different ways. And if you really want to have successive playthroughs at different difficulties, you can adjust the difficulty slider or even purposely gimp your characters in some way. Everything you're asking for is already in the game given such features, even if the classes are balanced as they should be. Meanwhile, if the classes are imbalanced as you wish them to be, then you would have large elements of the playerbase being penalized for their preference of playstyle. Let me know when they stick a fry cook class into Project Eternity because maybe I'll support your argument then.

 

I'll refrain from saying anything about how it always seems to be players of certain classes that tend to want extra ego-stroking and special treatment...

Edited June 3, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[ultimis]

I'll refrain from saying anything about how it always seems to be players of certain classes that tend to want extra ego-stroking and special treatment...

 

 

Well you didn't refrain. It's called immersion. Generally in fantasy Wizards are rare, eccentric, and powerful. How RPGs used to do it is the wizard at lower levels was generally one of the more weaker and pathetic classes (D&D you're just using a crossbow for most fights, and you're fairly gimp while you're at it). Warriors (more mundane) are usually easier at the lower levels and stay at the same relative strength throughout the game. That was the trade off that allowed the game to keep the high fantasy position of wizards.

 

This game is neither multiplayer nor competitive. The only balance that should matter is if all the classes are useful from beginning to end. Their comparative strengths should be based on the lore of the game.

[ultimis]

And again you're not quite getting the whole point. I apologise for not explaining myself better. There is an inherent problem to older d20 game and class design that flaws the game by making spell casting classes disproportionally powerful and making all "lesser" classes less interesting to play. And the flaw is that anything cool a player character can do is almost always implemented as a spell. Not a power, not an ability but a spell (I know there's some exceptions, quite a few but there's a HUGE amount of spells).

I was reading a p&p rpg forum earlier about how to make fighters more interesting at higher levels. What some of the people posting came to realise was, that in both 3.x and 4e, the same idea for a power/spell was put in both systems. The shared basic concept was that you could temporarily Dominate someone by Grabbing them and holding a weapon to their throat. 4e implemented it as a power available at 9th level to the Escaped Slave theme that any class could take. 3.x implemented it as a cleric spell, because it had to be a spell because it was 3.x. based and everything great has to be available as a spell. (I KNOW 4e has it's own failings PLEASE do not derail the thread)

What I am also pointing out is that in-built class imbalance is a design flaw inherent to older d20 systems and one that IMO cannot be fixed from within. Hence my admiration for Obsidian in creating their own system.

 

I'm all for the new system. And yes the wizard in D&D was like a swiss army knife (assuming you found all the spells, memorized them, and had them available when needed). What I was referring to is that just because the wizard is "powerful" doesn't mean it is best in all cases. They're are definitely mechanics which can be implemented to make wizards a hindrance in certain situations.

[Stun]

And this will be a party based game anyway. "class equality/balance" becomes moot here because in a *good* party based system, any class, weak or strong, is merely a part of the whole.

 

And I would *think* that decent variety and creativity in the beastiary would also render class balance moot. (ie. warriors should have an easier time killing Golems than mages would, and clerics should have an easier time killing undead than warriors etc.)

Edited June 3, 2013 by Stun

[mcmanusaur]

And this will be a party based game anyway. "class equality/balance" becomes moot here because in a *good* party based system, any class, weak or strong, is merely a part of the whole.

 

And I would *think* that decent variety and creativity in the beastiary would also render class balance moot. (ie. warriors should have an easier time killing Golems than mages would, and clerics should have an easier time killing undead than warriors etc.)

 

You are aware that when people refer to balance, they're generally talking about the whole of the game, and not specific encounters? Imbalance within encounters is fine and very preferable, as long as those imbalances balance out in the long run.

[Stun]

 

And this will be a party based game anyway. "class equality/balance" becomes moot here because in a *good* party based system, any class, weak or strong, is merely a part of the whole.

 

And I would *think* that decent variety and creativity in the beastiary would also render class balance moot. (ie. warriors should have an easier time killing Golems than mages would, and clerics should have an easier time killing undead than warriors etc.)

 

You are aware that when people refer to balance, they're generally talking about the whole of the game, and not specific encounters? Imbalance within encounters is fine and very preferable, as long as those imbalances balance out in the long run.

 

OH! well in that case, I take my initial comments back. Each one of the IE games contained perfect class balance.

 

Indeed, in every single one of them, after a certain point about halfway through the game, there were no more weak classes. Or even "weaker" classes. period.

 

So... what's the point of this discussion again?

Edited June 3, 2013 by Stun

[Lephys]

So... what's the point of this discussion again?

I'm pretty sure the point was to figure out there wasn't one.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Lephys

[Ffordesoon]

 

So... what's the point of this discussion again?

I'm pretty sure the point was to figure out there wasn't one.

Isn't that the point of all your discussions with TrashMan?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Isn't that the point of any discussion with TrashMan?

Fixed that for you.

 

On Balance: Pretty much a non-issue for PE. Sawyer is designing the mechanics himself instead of adapting D&D into a RTwP game. From everything I've heard him say about classes, they will all have strengths and weakness, and the choice between a mage and (insert other class) will be a bit more nuanced than "Should I take a dude who hits **** with a sword or someone that can kill waves of foes with a fart?".

[Sir Walter Devonshire]

The ability to aim for the eyes...