Josh Sawyer Explains: How to Balance an RPG - Extensive Editorial at Kotaku

[bonarbill]

 

I'm not seeing how picking that class makes the game more difficult when BG2 is a party based anyway.

 

Pure fighters were terrible in BG2 because of nerfed grand mastery and because of how magic users damage output and utility scaled at higher levels. Wizard Slayer went far beyond terrible locking the character out of most magic items without offering anything useful in return. Of course, if you wanted to gimp yourself without inventing any artificial rules WS was the way to go.

 

 

Just because magic was overpowered in BG2 doesn't mean pure fighers were terrible.  Pure fighters were absoultely fine in BG2. They still had insanse HP growth, they still had excllent damage in range and in melee.  In fact, one of the best NPCs in BG2 (ToB) was a pure fighter. 

 

As for WS, most magic item effects were replicated by spell and they still had access to one of the best boots in the game, but you're right, no magic items are a BIG penalty.  However, I don't see they spell failure ability(that goes through effects like stoneskin and mirror image) as "offering nothing useful in return."  Not to mention they are a great class to dual with a thief if you want 100% magic resistance in Throne of Bhaal.  I'll admit the kit isn't THAT great, but there is something satifying about seeing a Lich have 100% spell failure after 10 hits. 

Edited August 25, 2014 by bonarbill

[Stun]

Just because magic was overpowered in BG2 doesn't mean pure fighers were terrible.  Pure fighters were absoultely fine in BG2. They still had insanse HP growth, they still had excllent damage in range and in melee.  In fact, one of the best NPCs in BG2 (ToB) was a pure fighter.

Agreed, But Seravok doesn't count

 

An innate, no saving throw, no MR-check random insta-kill chance per hit? one that's cumulative with Vorpal weapons like Ravager and Axe of the Unyielding? If all fighters got that then all fighters would be overpowered in Bg2. They don't, though.

[HoonDing]

It was fun when I had his Deathbringer assault trigger on Sendai.

[prodigydancer]

Just because magic was overpowered in BG2 doesn't mean pure fighers were terrible.  Pure fighters were absoultely fine in BG2. They still had insanse HP growth, they still had excllent damage in range and in melee.  In fact, one of the best NPCs in BG2 (ToB) was a pure fighter. 

 

As for WS, most magic item effects were replicated by spell and they still had access to one of the best boots in the game, but you're right, no magic items are a BIG penalty.  However, I don't see they spell failure ability(that goes through effects like stoneskin and mirror image) as "offering nothing useful in return."  Not to mention they are a great class to dual with a thief if you want 100% magic resistance in Throne of Bhaal.  I'll admit the kit isn't THAT great, but there is something satifying about seeing a Lich have 100% spell failure after 10 hits. 

Pure fighters were terrible because much better options existed. Paladins and rangers outclassed them in melee (partially due to itemization) and ranged weapons just weren't that good in BG2 (although they were very powerful in BG). But the main problem was that fighters were simply boring. While casters had all kinds of spells and rogues at least had to position themselves for backstabs fighters were auto-attack zero trick ponies.

 

ToB brought HLAs and addressed itemization issues. But it was a long walk from Irenicus dungeon to the Grove of the Ancients.

Edited August 26, 2014 by prodigydancer

[Ink Blot]

You know, reading through more of this thread and thinking about this a bit more, I'm kind of torn about this. On the one hand, if there are truly 'no bad builds', this means there's not going to be a situation where a player is thinking "Wow, I'd really like to play a Corpsewalker, but they suck. Guess I'll settle for a Floorsweeper instead". The game is more 'accessible' (I think this is a bad word though...)

 

On the other hand, I tend to think: Look, as long as there is documentation available to the player (i.e. a decent frickin' manual) where they can read about the classes, races, abilities, talents, and spells (and game mechanics) so they can make informed choices, then tough s**t if they end up making a bad build. They had the opportunity to inform themselves. If they couldn't even take the time to figure the game basics out, then too bad. More 'hardcore', I guess (a word I'm growing to immensely dislike as well). But that's why many of us backed this project in the first place, no? The idea that the game was going to be like the old IE games, where you had to either know something about the game system, or learn it pretty damned quickly or you'd end up with your ass handed to you. Repeatedly.

 

But it remains to be seen how this will play out. I do believe it's possible to build a 'balanced' system where there are no 'bad builds' per se, but in order for it not to end up completely vanilla and bland, I think it by necessity will mean there are some builds that are... less-than-optimal, shall we say?

[IndiraLightfoot]

InkBlot: That's right about where I stand on this issue too. The same goes for attributes. I'd much rather see them have a stronger impact on your build - and if you for some bizarre reason, gimp all of them hard - then you really ought to be suffering from it - getting a really challenging playthrough even on Easy.

[Lephys]

That was just the *first* time I discovered an underpowered class build. Later I discovered a few others. The Beastmaster druid build is fundamentally underpowered. Of course, "challenge" is only part of all of this. The first time you discover a ridiculously overpowered build is also one of those magical moments in BG2.

If you can have "non-overpowered", and "overpowered," as distinct from one another, why do you really need "underpowered" to exist? What level of crappy do we need to put into a game just to allow "best" to still be the best?

 

I guess we should have some restaurants where they just intentionally put shards of metal and glass in your food, discretely, so that you can enjoy discovering that level of potential meal effectiveness. The existing "meh"-to-"DELICIOUS" range just isn't good enough.

 

Also, supporting the "play the game once" crowd and shunning the "play the game multiple times" crowd are not one in the same. So, I'm honestly unclear on why you'd like a game purely because it was SO against people who simply didn't feel like playing the game multiple times through just to get sufficient enjoyment out of it. That's a little weird.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Lephys

[Silent Winter]

Pure fighters were terrible because much better options existed.

Insofar as everything is relative, I won't disagree.

But 'terrible' in a single-player (party-based but you could also solo a straight fighter) game would mean, to me, that it's really, really difficult (to impossible) to complete the game with.

As Lephys just said - we could have mediocre builds up to awesome builds - powergamers still get their fix, challenge accepted at less optimal builds, but still no 'bad' builds.  It's not necessary to go all the way down to 'woah, I'm hitting for 1 damage 5% of the time with 3 stamina on easy.'

 

So the question is: Where do we draw the line at acceptible levels of suckiness?

Personally I'd like to see a broader range of effect than we have now, but I don't think it needs a huge tweak.  Maybe double the values / distance between top and bottom (so some could be reduced and some increased a little)

Edited August 27, 2014 by Silent Winter

[Stun]

It's not like Bioware tried to create a few underpowered classes in order to give the player a 'challenge to overcome' or whatever. The game is an RPG and often times a class will be designed for role playing purposes. This will sometimes mean that the class is more story/flavor relevant than combat effective, so it'll be significantly underpowered when compared to other classes. Bards in Bg1 are a perfect example. Beast Masters and wizard slayers are examples in BG2

Edited August 27, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

It's not like Bioware tried to create a few underpowered classes in order to give the player a 'challenge to overcome' or whatever. The game is an RPG and often times a class will be designed for role playing purposes.

No, it's just like they didn't try hard enough not to create blatantly underpowered classes.

 

Also, in PnP D&D, there pretty much wasn't any such thing as a class designed for not-role-playing, so why should a cRPG based upon a PnP game suddenly differentiate between classes that are specifically for roleplaying (somehow making it okay that they consistently suck throughout a playthrough, compared to all the other classes) and ones that are for not-sucking?

 

What mandates that these two things be mutually exclusive? Why can't I roleplay not-being-underpowered? that's the character I'm going for. I don't wanna be the best. I just don't want to be measurably horrible.

[Stun]

No, it's just like they didn't try hard enough not to create blatantly underpowered classes.

 

Also, in PnP D&D, there pretty much wasn't any such thing as a class designed for not-role-playing, so why should a cRPG based upon a PnP game suddenly differentiate between classes that are specifically for roleplaying (somehow making it okay that they consistently suck throughout a playthrough, compared to all the other classes) and ones that are for not-sucking?

Because pen and paper AD&D does not put nearly as much emphasis on combat as AD&D based Video games do. Bards and thieves for example, are FAR more powerful in pen and paper due to the immense importance of non-combat skills.

 

And another example I cited is also worthy of discussion: Beast Masters and Druids. In Pen and Paper, Rangers and Druids are virtually *gods* when you put them in a Wilderness setting. They can turn the entire forest against a foe. BG2 didn't capture that. It couldn't. But the lore dictates that Rangers and Druids be in the game anyway. So they put them in, so people can role play them. Unfortunately they put them in without their full nature power and without giving them new powers to compensate. The result is that Beastmasters (a Ranger kit) and just about all the druid kits are 1) weaker than they should be, 2) definitely weaker than other classes that did not suffer from the translation To computer.

 

What mandates that these two things be mutually exclusive?

I don't recall claiming they had to be as some rule. Just that this is how things turned out in the Baldurs gate games Edited August 27, 2014 by Stun

[Teslacrashed]

Fantastic article, I love reading insights into design and development. I hope we get more like this.

[redneckdevil]

I am wondering where "all classes will be equal" is meaning in power and not what i thought it meant in being equal in getting the game done?

Like if i play an uncharismatic fighter whos dumb as a horse, im still able to complete the quest of the missing daughter. Now if i had played through with someone whos charismatic or very lore knowledgeable etc etc, im able to complete the quest as well but more options and more info and a different outcome is availabel for me.

im not seeing the "play it once and experience everything" that people afe talking about, sorry its not Todd from Bethesda designing this so that u have no options whatsoever and every quest will be the same even when theres an illusion of choice, no. Hell just with one quest about a certain someone i had like 5 or 6 options in how i could do it and the end result felt different for a good bit of them.

[UpgrayeDD]

] Josh wants to maximize freedom within classes.

I had to log in so I could lol.

Lol

[PrimeJunta]

What's so funny, @UpgrayDD? That is his stated intent. How well he is succeeding is another matter entirely. (ATM not that well, but we'll see how it goes once additional talents are in.)

[Fiebras]

Because pen and paper AD&D does not put nearly as much emphasis on combat as AD&D based Video games do. Bards and thieves for example, are FAR more powerful in pen and paper due to the immense importance of non-combat skills.

 

And another example I cited is also worthy of discussion: Beast Masters and Druids. In Pen and Paper, Rangers and Druids are virtually *gods* when you put them in a Wilderness setting. They can turn the entire forest against a foe. BG2 didn't capture that. It couldn't. But the lore dictates that Rangers and Druids be in the game anyway. So they put them in, so people can role play them. Unfortunately they put them in without their full nature power and without giving them new powers to compensate. The result is that Beastmasters (a Ranger kit) and just about all the druid kits are 1) weaker than they should be, 2) definitely weaker than other classes that did not suffer from the translation To computer.

Something Ive been wondering about is wether the source of some problems people are having with the current state of the game mechanics and clases is that IE games used established P&P systems and translated them to computer (with varying degrees of success) while PoE is using a new system (albeit influenced by P&P systems) with computers in mind which may or may not mean that all the fat (both useful and not useful) that allowed for the previous systems to be role-playable in P&P are not present in PoE or are simplified/streamlined/merged in such a way that it doesnt allow the same depth (because its meant to be just good enough for computer gaming) and its causing headscratches in some areas.

I think Sawyer said in an interview he tested the system in P&P but I wouldnt know how to interpret that.

 

What ends up hapening might be the equivalent of being served a light fresh meal (say a caprese salad) as oposed to a heavy heavily-spiced meal (say a home-made burger with BBQ sauce and bacon). Both are food and both of them can be served in equal quantity but one of them has a higher chance of leaving some people feeling unsatisfied (this being a matter of personal taste). And Im guessing some of the more vocal people on the forums are gonna choose the burger over the plain salad.

 

Im just throwing thought proceses fueled by the need to make food analogies though and could be off the mark.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

http://kotaku.com/how-to-balance-an-rpg-1625516832

 

 

Nice sentiments. If only the beta had demonstrated them in practice...

[Valorian]

 (ATM not that well, but we'll see how it goes once additional talents are in.)

 

Regardless of additional talents, the sparseness of levels at which they're gained is what hampers customization. I believe there's no good reason to delay the first talent until level 3.

[nipsen]

"It is now 2014 and, friends, I am here to tell you that trash options are bull****. "

 

:D Yep.

 

..hilarious stuff, though. Welcome to journalism in 2014 - where you ask game-designers to write their own editorials. rofl. Read the excerpt, and thought it was a staff piece based on an interview, or something like that. And wanted to congratulate Josh on a very well written editorial. And then..

 

"Editor's note: The following is a guest editorial by Obsidian game designer Josh Sawyer. If you're a professional in the video game industry and you'd like to write about some of your experiences, contact jason@kotaku.com."

[Marceror]

I hadn't really been considering the modding possibilities too much. Here's the mod I'd like to see after PoE is released:

 

1. Add combat based and skill based experience - lower quest based experience rewards for balance. And yes, if someone is thorough and kills every enemy in the game, they WILL get more experience than the party that only focuses on quests.
2. Add mundane and magical ammunition for all ranged weapons - bows, crossbows, firearms. - personally would like to see a stack limit of around 80 per.
3. Increase each characters' inventory by 4 or 5x the current amount - we'll need room for that ammunition, and generally should be able to hold more in our pack than we currently can.
4. Limit the size of the party stash, and allow it only to be accessed while outside or in your stronghold (i.e. let's assume you have a beast of burden or two that you have to load it onto, which you can't bring into a dungeon with you. If you need to make a couple of trips to get all of the loot, you will only need to go to the dungeon exit.
5. Related to number 4, later in the game we should be able to find magical bags that allow us to carry much more gear on our person.
6. Give all items a weight, and have Might influence how much each character can carry before becoming encumbered. The party stash should have an extremely high weight limit, or if that's too hard to mod, no limit would be okay there.

These modded additions along with a fully fleshed out, refined and non-buggy base game pretty much describes my dream RPG.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

To borrow a post from the Codex, it's been shown that you can create a mage with max Might, dump DEX (accuracy) to 3 and INT to 3 and it's still a good build and can take on a lion one on one. There just seems to be something wrong when you can dump attributes like DEX and INT for a wizard but it's still a viable and appears to be a good build for the game.

[Leferd]

There just seems something wrong when you can't get with the Muscle Wizard.

 

[Stun]

To borrow a post from the Codex, it's been shown that you can create a mage with max Might, dump DEX (accuracy) to 3 and INT to 3 and it's still a good build and can take on a lion one on one. There just seems to be something wrong when you can dump attributes like DEX and INT for a wizard but it's still a viable and appears to be a good build for the game.

Oh, It's Far worse than that.

 

It's one thing when a Wizard chooses to dump Intelligence and dexterity in favor of pumping might and constitution. At least in that case logic would dictate that such a build means that you're making a meaningful tradeoff (to be decent in melee in exchange for being a less effective spell caster)

 

But the system in place even removes THAT trade off. As it stands, you can dump ALL your attributes to 3 and it won't make much of a difference. Your wizard will still be totally effective in melee, and totally effective casting spells. Which means your build choices are cosmetic, verging on placebo-like. The only thing that matters is the class you choose, which has already been designed to be good at everything.

 

It's an idiot proof system.

Edited September 2, 2014 by Stun

[Grand_Commander13]

You realize that a system that asks you to make yourself bad at the things you'll never do to be good at the things you'll always do isn't particularly cognitively demanding either, right?

[Hiro Protagonist II]

@stun. It appears from the log that the Mage took on a lion, killed it. Then is taking on another lion. And has most of his health. He's barely taken any damage. As you've said, the attributes are cosmetic. Different 'builds' may have a small difference but it will be mostly be a placebo effect. The attributes do very little to differentiate builds.

 

Also, another post shows the difference with the Priest casting Consecrated Ground with an INT 3 and INT 18. Even dumping the stat down to 3, the area is still quite large. This is what happens when you design a system with no bad builds for people who don't know what they're doing. Dumping stats like INT and DEX down to 3 still makes a good character. I had to chuckle at this post and picture.