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

[bonarbill]

Nope! Didn't happen that way at all! I found myself getting thrashed like a clueless n00b by a game that seemed to take issue with my smug arrogance and delusions of mastery. As I quickly discovered, Wizard Slayers were simply one of the classes designed for the pros. They were mechanically underpowered. The game can be beat with them of course, but Bioware didn't give a sh*t about "fair", "diplomatic" crap like Level Playing Fields, and "equality for all".

 

Unless you never played a fighter class in during those first four playthroughs, don't see how you had any more difficulty compared to using any other figher buikld.  WS are just basically fighters that can't use certain equipment options....that's it.  They're nearly identical to normal fighers. I'm not seeing how picking that class makes the game more difficult when BG2 is a party based anyway.

[prodigydancer]

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

Sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Powerful main character in BG2 could carry the party. Otherwise the game was noticeably harder (especially early fights on higher difficulties).

 

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.

Edited August 24, 2014 by prodigydancer

[kozzy]

Gotta love Mr Sawyer

[IndiraLightfoot]

May I add that Josh & Co now has definitely closed the door on any xp system that dishes out xp in small increments?

 

I've been away for a day, and guess what I found in my in-box when I got home, a message from a dev (from Sking who did the first post about xp, saying it's quest only. In a reply to my wondering whether we'll get to have a more old-school, combat xp, in the game too (or even if modders like me can help them add one before it ships, Sking says:

"Once the game releases any mod you feel is necessary to heighten your experience, you should definitely do."

                                                                                                                              Sent 22 August 2014 - 08:22 PM

 

OE will have quest-xp only (their version of "objective xp"). It certainly saddens me to see a core part of the IE games getting ripped out - it's like PoE will be missing it's spleen or something. *Sigh* 

[PrimeJunta]

Fortunately the spleen is one of those organs nobody seems to know what it's for, and people do just fine without it. 

 

[IndiraLightfoot]

It will be very hard getting used to OE's version of CRPG 2.0, but I'll adjust, I just need a xp-detox at a rehab first. It will hurt. 

[Monte Carlo]

Sneaky, slipping the xp thing in under the radar like that. Ironic that Sawyers RPG design dogmas are already last generation, which is what happens when you value fashion over style.

[PrimeJunta]

What's the current generation of RPG design dogmas? (Not a rhetorical quesiton, genuinely curious.)

[IndiraLightfoot]

I'll hazard a guess: Something like the MMO-oozing 4th ed of D&D, instead of the option-heavy, tinker-friendly 3.5 ed, for instance.

[PrimeJunta]

If anything is yesterday's design, it's 4e. 5e is already out.

 

Perhaps MC was insinuating that Josh's design philosophy == 4e. Which is untrue, obviously, but it's one of the favorite things his un-fans like to say.

[Stun]

It's heavily influenced by 4e. It doesn't have to be an exact replica for MC's point to ring true

Edited August 24, 2014 by Stun

[archangel979]

If anything is yesterday's design, it's 4e. 5e is already out.

 

Perhaps MC was insinuating that Josh's design philosophy == 4e. Which is untrue, obviously, but it's one of the favorite things his un-fans like to say.

since Sawyer himself said he enjoyed 4e a lot it is not strange we mention it.

 

I don't mind it, but I would rather have a turn based game inspired by 4e.

[IndiraLightfoot]

archangel79: If they don't fix combat as it stands right now, which I'm sure they will, it would have been sweet having a turn-based combat system, but basing it on 4th ed...

[Sensuki]

Balance is cool, but there's also a fine line between balance and banal.

[IndiraLightfoot]

...and between balance and bleak, bland and bloated.

[Sensuki]

I liked the word banal because you can actually make it from the letters in balance ^^

[PrimeJunta]

It's heavily influenced by 4e. It doesn't have to be an exact replica for MC's point to ring true

Except that the class design is the polar opposite. 4e defines classes strictly in terms of combat roles. You can't deviate from them. It's in fact the main reason I threw my 4e boxed set across the room after reading it. Josh wants to maximize freedom within classes.

 

There are obvious influences, of course, like per-encounter and per-rest abilities and an attempt to address the class imbalance between magic-using and mundane classes, but then there are obvious influences from other sources as well.

 

The blow-by-blow combat mechanics are strongly reminescent of 4e. Funny though that those elements are seeing a good deal less criticism than elements that have nothing to do with 4e, e.g. the attribute or XP systems. I'm mostly seeing that criticized by people who object to fighters having active abilities as a matter of principle.

Edited August 24, 2014 by PrimeJunta

[archangel979]

archangel79: If they don't fix combat as it stands right now, which I'm sure they will, it would have been sweet having a turn-based combat system, but basing it on 4th ed...

4e is perfect for a turn based cRPG, more so than pen&paper.

I was sad that it passed without anyone making one. Only D&D edition that didn't get a single player cRPG.

[IndiraLightfoot]

archangel979: One was actually made, and I played like three times, and it sucked badly: Daggerdale. It's probably the worst D&D CRPG of all time, and I've played all of them, since I have no choice - I love D&D iterations!

 

Yeah, parts of 4th ed would fit a well-balanced turn-based CRPG really well.

[archangel979]

Wasn't Daggerdale like action game or something?

[IndiraLightfoot]

An ARPG, more or less, yeah. The NPCs weren't even silent in the convos. They grunted like an adult version of baby prattle.

[Wintersong]

 

This is an interesting reading but I wonder - when every option is as good as the next one doesn't it make choices less exciting? If there are no bad builds what stops player from clicking through chargen screens with their eyes closed picking things at random? If there's no bad gear how can there be good or great gear?

^QFT. I believe our fine Mr. Sawyer has succumbed to the notion that all choices should produce relatively equal outcomes. This is, of course, patent nonsense, but he's from a very different school of thought than those of us who favor a higher verisimilitude quotient in our gaming. Creating a dex-based frontline fighter in leather armor and equipping him with dual daggers should lead to a great many more headaches for the player than a strength-based fighter wearing a chain hauberk and equipped with a broadsword and shield. The latter is appropriate for the role and the former simply isn't.

 

True that the fighter with daggers and light armor is worse tank that the sword&board one. True also that he is worse DPS than a rogue (of any kind?). But I guess that for PoE, the idea is that any gameplay choice you make, should be good enough. Not inherently the best or worst, but good enough to not hit an end road. So a high dex, light armor, dual wielding daggers Fighter, should be doable. As long as you can cope with the natural disadvantages of going against some design decisions (you are not going to be a tank with that setup). Having played in D&D3+ many high dex, medium/light, dual wielding pure fighters (with acrobatics), I can say that they are awesome. Only daggers would seem a very strange selection for weapon though. Long swords, short swords, scimitars, rapiers... but daggers?

 

Next: high dex, no armor, fighting with punches fighter!!!

 

 

 

 

Ok, maybe some options cannot be salvaged at all...

[Failion]

 

Of course you ain't alone. Run for President and I'll vote for you.

 

You've touched on one of the things I value immensely in the IE games and especially BG2: No Fairness Guarantees. They were *SO* anti-"play-the-game-once-crowd". For example, I loved BG2 the minute I got my hands on it. But I didn't truly appreciate just how utterly great it was until my 4th or 5th playthrough when I rolled up a Wizard Slayer. I thought that since I had an extensive AD&D background, and since I had played the previous IE games to death (BG1, IWD, PS:T) and since This was my 4th or 5th playthrough of BG2, that it wouldn't matter what the class skill-set was. The bottom line in my mind was that I memorized the game and therefore, Game dominance was assured.

 

Nope! Didn't happen that way at all! I found myself getting thrashed like a clueless n00b by a game that seemed to take issue with my smug arrogance and delusions of mastery. As I quickly discovered, Wizard Slayers were simply one of the classes designed for the pros. They were mechanically underpowered. The game can be beat with them of course, but Bioware didn't give a sh*t about "fair", "diplomatic" crap like Level Playing Fields, and "equality for all".

 

As a result, it felt like a brand new game all over again. And this intrigued me so much that I redoubled my efforts to recapture the moment. for the next 13 years I'd explore hundreds of different builds, I'd "throttle" the game's mechanics to the breaking point and I'd routinely fall in love with the game all over again as I discovered other builds that were decidedly weaker (and stronger) than each other.

 

PoE isn't gonna give us that even if it ends up being an excellent game. Because all of the above is in direct opposition to Josh's design philosophies.

 

I don't know about you but any fighter with a 18+ strength score steams through everything in infinity engine games. You don't even need rings in baldurs gate, armor class was pointless compared to say 100 hitpoints. Wizard slayers were overpowered as **** if you used them right to assasinate spell casters especially when working in unison with a inquisitor. The infinity engine games are very easy if you familiar with their ruleset and mechanics. You didn't even have to care what weapon you using as long as its magical and you proficient in it. Only when you are fighting golems you would have to switch out.

 

From what I heard pillars will be a more difficult because there are more to its game mechanics then have 18 strength fighter be easy mode steam roll everything. Enemies have resistances so eventually a dagger wielding fighter in light armor will get incredibly ****ed against some enemies. While infinity engine games his enchanted daggers and armor will take him through every fight besides golems. 

[sorrowofwind]

I thought hardcore rpg players prefer using those "trash choices" like playing low leveled commoners, low magic, slow level progression, low in gold & resources on tabletop? 

 

Also E6 & E8 > epic level.  

[Stun]

I don't know about you but any fighter with a 18+ strength score steams through everything in infinity engine games. You don't even need rings in baldurs gate, armor class was pointless compared to say 100 hitpoints. Wizard slayers were overpowered as **** if you used them right to assasinate spell casters especially when working in unison with a inquisitor. The infinity engine games are very easy if you familiar with their ruleset and mechanics. You didn't even have to care what weapon you using as long as its magical and you proficient in it. Only when you are fighting golems you would have to switch out.

 

 

First, 14 years later, I would never claim that BG2 is difficult. Second, do we need this silly hyperbole? Third, working in unison with an inquisitor (You mean Keldorn?) or any other party member to make things easy, is not an argument to the powerfulness of Wizard slayers. It just means your inquisitor and your other party members were the ones who took care of mages. Because paladins, clerics, mages and thieves are the overpowered classes. BG2 is about Loot and magic. Wizard slayers can't use any loot but armor, weapons and healing potions. And they most certainly don't have access to magic.

 

That makes them underpowered in BG2 by definition.

 

 

From what I heard pillars will be a more difficult because there are more to its game mechanics then have 18 strength fighter be easy mode steam roll everything. Enemies have resistances so eventually a dagger wielding fighter in light armor will get incredibly ****ed against some enemies. While infinity engine games his enchanted daggers and armor will take him through every fight besides golems.

That's not how the Beta played out for me. Nor is it a description of Josh's game design philosophies. AT ALL. In my playthroughs of this beta, a naked mage (yes naked. see the gear disappearing loot bug) was not even remotely ineffective in combat...melee or otherwise. Edited August 24, 2014 by Stun