Some of you out there are probably familiar with the game Gamma World, for those of you that are younger or more familiar with the most recent release of it (quite fun btw) it is a very fun and very bizarre game. One thing that I find is that there are a lot of people who enjoy Gamma World in part because it is so crazy and to an extent because it is imbalanced. You can be a super mutant with radiation powers and have a suit of power armor alongside a crazy feral person with a sword, and oddly it doesn't matter too much. The game does somewhat assume frequent deaths, but really you can have people of wildly disparate power levels in the game and it will still be fairly fun.
Now some of it might be that Gamma World runs heavily off of the weird factor, IE a big part of the enjoyment is more the bizarre spectacle than say balanced gameplay. On a note with my own group, I have mentioned before that I'm a big fan of Deadlands, my group currently has a Deadlands game going. When I set up a Savage World jaunt for them briefly I got a few positive responses but a lot of negative ones. Now Savage Worlds is more balanced, and the response may have been more rooted in either a desire for familiarity or something similar but I found it interesting that by and large their reaction was relatively negative towards it. A few of them even commented that the relatively imbalanced nature of the game was part of the fun.
For the record my group does generally care about game balance and if someone has abilities that are dominating combats and the like we usually talk about either nerfing or altering how the abilities work. And I'm sure that's true in most games. Maybe the question should be if balance really matters but also what we mean by balance.
Showing posts with label Game balance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Game balance. Show all posts
Friday, August 26, 2011
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Magnificent Failures: Magic of Incarnum
One thing that I've been thinking on recently is on a lot of game supplements that were what I would call magnificent failures. These are games or supplements that while they never quite managed to catch or really get a big level of focus or were somehow flawed still had a really good concept, idea or system that was lurking under the problems. One of my favorite examples for this was a D&D game for 3rd edition called Magic of Incarnum, it was a supplement that offered a new kind of magic system to the game.
Thematically Incarnum was the calling and binding of souls, you called on the essence of all who lived and all yet to be born, you channeled this energy into objects that symbolized heroes, villains, warriors, thieves, etc. It was a very interesting system conceptually, you could mix and match powers and features to either gain new abilities or augment existing ones. There were also a few options for someone wanting to dabble in it a bit the real problem with the system however is that...well it was very poorly implemented.
Using the powers to their fullest extent meant giving up item slots, doable and there were options for sharing slots and the like but it was still kind of iffy. Also a lot of it involved juggling a second resource called 'essentia' that you got from being an incarnum using class or by taking incarnum feats that granted you essentia in 1 per feat. You had to track how much essentia you invested in the feats, the soulmelds, etc. and you couldn't change it during the day so you had to make sure you knew what you wanted to do and what was supposed to go where. It was clunky and it added a lot of extra book keeping.
The secondary issue was this, the classes themselves that were meant to be the central incarnum users were for lack of a better term questionably designed. The Totemist was probably the best designed of the three but the problem I have with it is that it depends heavily on the natural weapons that some of its soulmelds offer without bothering to explain how they interact and essentially 'locking' certain slots automatically during game progression, it's overall still pretty good but it was a pet peeve. The Soulborn was the second creation, this one was more a problem of there not really being enough of the actual class feature available. What I mean is this, the class itself didn't get much to actually use the soulmelds and abilities this was particularly bothersome because it made it feel like they, a class BUILT for using the new system, were little more than dabblers.
The third class needs a lot of explanation, the Incarnate was sort of the flagship for the Incarnum classes in my view. It had the most essentia, most access to soulmelds and gained them the fastest. It had full armor proficiency and full weapon proficiency, decent saves as well, in fact there was only one problem, it had the base attack bonus of a primary caster, IE the wizards. The first problem here is simply that looking at it was a little confusing, most of the stuff shown, and the description they gave said that this was a combatant that harnessed Incarnum to augment themselves and their allies, but the wizard BaB said that they were going to have trouble hitting and that their main focus would apparently be elsewhere.
I think that there were two reasons that this happened, and it probably also explains why the Soulborn actually got so few Incarnum soulmelds. The first is that because of how a lot of the soulmelds worked you could actually get a really good bonus to hit, probably edging out the fighter or at least getting close even on the poor base attack bonus. The second one is more that the soulmelds were really versatile, it wasn't just combat bonuses. They offered bonuses for just about every skill, if your group woke up locked in jail cells stripped of gear you could simply summon up the hands of the thief, the rogues vest and a few others and suddenly the jail cells might as well be made of paper.
I think the fear was that due to potential versatility they were afraid of the Incarnate becoming too powerful, the same with the Soulborn. This is one of the areas where the designers might have botched things a bit, it's kind of where theory and practice veer in different directions. The amount of versatility was hypothetically a major power for the Incarnate, but due to elements of design much of the vaunted versatility would sit unused. The reason was simply this, with everything but the base attack bonus proclaiming that it was meant to fight in melee or at least in ranged, most points and abilities were likely to veer in that direction, the other abilities were likely to sit unused unless say the person playing the rogue couldn't make it to that session or something similar.
It's not that the versatility idea was bad, just that given the nature of the class that had it it was unlikely to really be very often used. I view it in ways similar to high level wizard or sorcerer spells that were designed to turn them into melee powerhouses. While the spells themselves may have been impressive they weren't really all that likely to be used, or if they were something had likely gone wrong somewhere or things had changed rather radically.
What made Incarnum such a magnificent failure in my view is that while there were a lot of things that went wrong with Incarnum there was actually a lot of really great stuff here. The concept of essentially harnessing the raw spiritual energy of all the universes souls, shaped my archetypes of heroism or villainy, is a pretty neat idea. The sheer number of options that you could mix and match from was pretty cool too. The other thing is simply that the idea was unique, it was very different and very dynamic, I applaud innovation in game design and while this experiment might have been problematic it was still quite an interesting one.
Thematically Incarnum was the calling and binding of souls, you called on the essence of all who lived and all yet to be born, you channeled this energy into objects that symbolized heroes, villains, warriors, thieves, etc. It was a very interesting system conceptually, you could mix and match powers and features to either gain new abilities or augment existing ones. There were also a few options for someone wanting to dabble in it a bit the real problem with the system however is that...well it was very poorly implemented.
Using the powers to their fullest extent meant giving up item slots, doable and there were options for sharing slots and the like but it was still kind of iffy. Also a lot of it involved juggling a second resource called 'essentia' that you got from being an incarnum using class or by taking incarnum feats that granted you essentia in 1 per feat. You had to track how much essentia you invested in the feats, the soulmelds, etc. and you couldn't change it during the day so you had to make sure you knew what you wanted to do and what was supposed to go where. It was clunky and it added a lot of extra book keeping.
The secondary issue was this, the classes themselves that were meant to be the central incarnum users were for lack of a better term questionably designed. The Totemist was probably the best designed of the three but the problem I have with it is that it depends heavily on the natural weapons that some of its soulmelds offer without bothering to explain how they interact and essentially 'locking' certain slots automatically during game progression, it's overall still pretty good but it was a pet peeve. The Soulborn was the second creation, this one was more a problem of there not really being enough of the actual class feature available. What I mean is this, the class itself didn't get much to actually use the soulmelds and abilities this was particularly bothersome because it made it feel like they, a class BUILT for using the new system, were little more than dabblers.
The third class needs a lot of explanation, the Incarnate was sort of the flagship for the Incarnum classes in my view. It had the most essentia, most access to soulmelds and gained them the fastest. It had full armor proficiency and full weapon proficiency, decent saves as well, in fact there was only one problem, it had the base attack bonus of a primary caster, IE the wizards. The first problem here is simply that looking at it was a little confusing, most of the stuff shown, and the description they gave said that this was a combatant that harnessed Incarnum to augment themselves and their allies, but the wizard BaB said that they were going to have trouble hitting and that their main focus would apparently be elsewhere.
I think that there were two reasons that this happened, and it probably also explains why the Soulborn actually got so few Incarnum soulmelds. The first is that because of how a lot of the soulmelds worked you could actually get a really good bonus to hit, probably edging out the fighter or at least getting close even on the poor base attack bonus. The second one is more that the soulmelds were really versatile, it wasn't just combat bonuses. They offered bonuses for just about every skill, if your group woke up locked in jail cells stripped of gear you could simply summon up the hands of the thief, the rogues vest and a few others and suddenly the jail cells might as well be made of paper.
I think the fear was that due to potential versatility they were afraid of the Incarnate becoming too powerful, the same with the Soulborn. This is one of the areas where the designers might have botched things a bit, it's kind of where theory and practice veer in different directions. The amount of versatility was hypothetically a major power for the Incarnate, but due to elements of design much of the vaunted versatility would sit unused. The reason was simply this, with everything but the base attack bonus proclaiming that it was meant to fight in melee or at least in ranged, most points and abilities were likely to veer in that direction, the other abilities were likely to sit unused unless say the person playing the rogue couldn't make it to that session or something similar.
It's not that the versatility idea was bad, just that given the nature of the class that had it it was unlikely to really be very often used. I view it in ways similar to high level wizard or sorcerer spells that were designed to turn them into melee powerhouses. While the spells themselves may have been impressive they weren't really all that likely to be used, or if they were something had likely gone wrong somewhere or things had changed rather radically.
What made Incarnum such a magnificent failure in my view is that while there were a lot of things that went wrong with Incarnum there was actually a lot of really great stuff here. The concept of essentially harnessing the raw spiritual energy of all the universes souls, shaped my archetypes of heroism or villainy, is a pretty neat idea. The sheer number of options that you could mix and match from was pretty cool too. The other thing is simply that the idea was unique, it was very different and very dynamic, I applaud innovation in game design and while this experiment might have been problematic it was still quite an interesting one.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
The Right Way to play pt. 3
In my last few posts I've tried to talk about the concept of a right way to play games and this last post is somewhat of a tricky one, in part because I want to finish it here and this question is the root of a lot of bigger arguments in gaming. The biggest issue with the idea of a right way to play, at least in my mind, is that it's sort of a mask for either a bigger question or idea that the person is trying to state.
It can be about gamestyle preferences, it can be a question of what a person brings to a game, really there are a lot of ways to look at it. One way is simply a matter of style and preference, the people talking about roleplay or optimization as if they were mutually exclusive for example. Another is a bit trickier and it's somewhat more prevalent in online gaming than it would be in tabletops.
In online games there can be said to be a more objective right and wrong way to play, part of why I say this is that those games are generally of a less 'sandbox' method in that classes or skillsets are designed for certain things and the game can't really alter itself based on learning curves on a case by case basis (barring server wide patches and the like). The games are also much more based around cooperation in that if a person doesn't build the warrior to tank as well as they can or the healer is built incorrectly...well that ends up making things hard for others and creating frustration for all those involved. Part of what makes a game work, and what makes a way to play 'right' or 'wrong' has to do with what makes all the people involved happy and lets them have fun.
Ignoring the systems, the arguments, etc. we all game to have fun, to relieve stress and do something interesting with out friends. Now the biggest thing in all of it is that you and those around you are having fun. Someone is playing the wrong way when they and those around them aren't having fun, sometimes it means that the person should redo their character, sometimes it means that the group needs to change in terms of some people leaving or something similar.
It can be about gamestyle preferences, it can be a question of what a person brings to a game, really there are a lot of ways to look at it. One way is simply a matter of style and preference, the people talking about roleplay or optimization as if they were mutually exclusive for example. Another is a bit trickier and it's somewhat more prevalent in online gaming than it would be in tabletops.
In online games there can be said to be a more objective right and wrong way to play, part of why I say this is that those games are generally of a less 'sandbox' method in that classes or skillsets are designed for certain things and the game can't really alter itself based on learning curves on a case by case basis (barring server wide patches and the like). The games are also much more based around cooperation in that if a person doesn't build the warrior to tank as well as they can or the healer is built incorrectly...well that ends up making things hard for others and creating frustration for all those involved. Part of what makes a game work, and what makes a way to play 'right' or 'wrong' has to do with what makes all the people involved happy and lets them have fun.
Ignoring the systems, the arguments, etc. we all game to have fun, to relieve stress and do something interesting with out friends. Now the biggest thing in all of it is that you and those around you are having fun. Someone is playing the wrong way when they and those around them aren't having fun, sometimes it means that the person should redo their character, sometimes it means that the group needs to change in terms of some people leaving or something similar.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Right way to play? Pt. 1
I'm going to try to address each question as a blog post and be as concise and coherent as possible, and hopefully interesting. Let's look at the first one, where a person new to a game posts on a forum about the game asking for advice on their character. The responses are varied and each one seems to give an idea of a 'right' way to play, or the reactions to said posts. The concept of a right way to play is varied, to some people there is no real wrong way to play but there are ways that are better and worse.
To the people simply giving general advice IE what abilities to pick or offering a build strategy they are simply answering the question and don't seem to offer any judgement on a right or wrong way. But I've heard some gamers condemn 'builds' as wrong or something to be avoided because they felt it detracted from organic character growth or that it took the person outside of the game. Others might counter "the player wants to be good at X, I wrote up how to be good at X" and X could be anything from a fighting style, to a method of using magic, to efficient underwater basketweaving.
To those offering builds there might also be divides, some are far more mechanically intensive where others are bare bones. In here we get the idea that if you're going to do something as a focus you need to go at it full tilt, IE second best isn't good enough. They might even justify it as 'If you're not doing your best the rest of the group is being let down' And then other people argue that he wasn't necessarily even asking for a comprehensive build, just some general information about what to look for, saying that they're trying to force others to play like them.
There are also some who might say that the players decision was a poor one and they should try a different class or set of options in order to do what they want. Now, their commentary is seen by some as simple advice and help to a newbie, IE if they want to play a certain style of character certain classes match the theme better than others or certain power templates offer that ability collection more easily. Or perhaps a certain class or ability template is just bad, at least from their perspective, and they want to warn the player against using it to avoid frustration.
Each of these things and the reactions to them imply concepts of right and wrong ways to play the game, hell a lot of them might even just be seen as tracing from the idea of an 'optimization' vs 'role play' dichotomy. Where there is seen as a sort of scale where you can't do both one and the other and that being good at one necessarily means being bad at another. The idea also that either one is a good or bad way of playing. So I guess the question that should be asked is if any of the people in my example were 'wrong' and if so why? I'll try to address the other questions soon.
To the people simply giving general advice IE what abilities to pick or offering a build strategy they are simply answering the question and don't seem to offer any judgement on a right or wrong way. But I've heard some gamers condemn 'builds' as wrong or something to be avoided because they felt it detracted from organic character growth or that it took the person outside of the game. Others might counter "the player wants to be good at X, I wrote up how to be good at X" and X could be anything from a fighting style, to a method of using magic, to efficient underwater basketweaving.
To those offering builds there might also be divides, some are far more mechanically intensive where others are bare bones. In here we get the idea that if you're going to do something as a focus you need to go at it full tilt, IE second best isn't good enough. They might even justify it as 'If you're not doing your best the rest of the group is being let down' And then other people argue that he wasn't necessarily even asking for a comprehensive build, just some general information about what to look for, saying that they're trying to force others to play like them.
There are also some who might say that the players decision was a poor one and they should try a different class or set of options in order to do what they want. Now, their commentary is seen by some as simple advice and help to a newbie, IE if they want to play a certain style of character certain classes match the theme better than others or certain power templates offer that ability collection more easily. Or perhaps a certain class or ability template is just bad, at least from their perspective, and they want to warn the player against using it to avoid frustration.
Each of these things and the reactions to them imply concepts of right and wrong ways to play the game, hell a lot of them might even just be seen as tracing from the idea of an 'optimization' vs 'role play' dichotomy. Where there is seen as a sort of scale where you can't do both one and the other and that being good at one necessarily means being bad at another. The idea also that either one is a good or bad way of playing. So I guess the question that should be asked is if any of the people in my example were 'wrong' and if so why? I'll try to address the other questions soon.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Is there a right way to play?
This is something that comes up every now and again in games, and it's in both online and tabletop games, is there a right or wrong way to play? I think this one is going to be somewhat piecemeal because it's kind of a big question or at least one that isn't easy to answer. Part of the idea of there being a right or wrong way to play is the concept that there are better and worse ways of playing a game. The idea on this is somewhat dependent on who is asking and why, and it's part of what causes all kinds of arguments at game tables, forums, and blogs.
One thing to start with is to ask why the question is being asked and who is asking it. I'll give a few different examples of where I see people making assumptions, sometimes unconsciously, about a 'right' and 'wrong' way to play a game, be it tabletop or online.
1) A player relatively new to a game going to a forum asking for advice and help on making a character, explaining the concept and class that they want to use. The responses are mostly either build advice or being told to avoid the class mentioned because it sucks, doesn't do what the player wants very well, etc.
2) A player new to roleplaying games focusing more on the mechanical aspects of their character than on the personality, the person gets chastized for being unwilling or unable to get in character, they argue that they wanted to be hunting for treasure and monsters instead of chatting up random yokels in town with thees and thous.
3) A person playing an online game with a talent system is messaged out of the blue being told that their design sucks, that they aren't capable of playing the class or character correctly, etc. and that if they want to do it right they need to copy the designs shown on website X.
4) A person talking about their character, either their roleplay or background, is chastised because their portrayal of some fantasy race is obviously wrong. Dwarves are never mages, humans are never better than elves, elves don't act like that, halflings are supposed to be jolly, etc.
5) A person playing either a tabletop game or an online game is called out for being cheap or a munchkin because of an ability, item, or some combination of effects because those things are 'too powerful' 'broken' or 'an I-Win Button' and that they should 'learn to play the right way' or something to that extent.
Now in each of these the mindsets are different and there are probably arguments on each side. I'm not going to go into direct particulars on stuff because it is very much a case by case basis but over the course of the next few days/weeks I hope I can shed some light on my views and maybe stimulate some discussion.
One thing to start with is to ask why the question is being asked and who is asking it. I'll give a few different examples of where I see people making assumptions, sometimes unconsciously, about a 'right' and 'wrong' way to play a game, be it tabletop or online.
1) A player relatively new to a game going to a forum asking for advice and help on making a character, explaining the concept and class that they want to use. The responses are mostly either build advice or being told to avoid the class mentioned because it sucks, doesn't do what the player wants very well, etc.
2) A player new to roleplaying games focusing more on the mechanical aspects of their character than on the personality, the person gets chastized for being unwilling or unable to get in character, they argue that they wanted to be hunting for treasure and monsters instead of chatting up random yokels in town with thees and thous.
3) A person playing an online game with a talent system is messaged out of the blue being told that their design sucks, that they aren't capable of playing the class or character correctly, etc. and that if they want to do it right they need to copy the designs shown on website X.
4) A person talking about their character, either their roleplay or background, is chastised because their portrayal of some fantasy race is obviously wrong. Dwarves are never mages, humans are never better than elves, elves don't act like that, halflings are supposed to be jolly, etc.
5) A person playing either a tabletop game or an online game is called out for being cheap or a munchkin because of an ability, item, or some combination of effects because those things are 'too powerful' 'broken' or 'an I-Win Button' and that they should 'learn to play the right way' or something to that extent.
Now in each of these the mindsets are different and there are probably arguments on each side. I'm not going to go into direct particulars on stuff because it is very much a case by case basis but over the course of the next few days/weeks I hope I can shed some light on my views and maybe stimulate some discussion.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
When Roles Go Bad Pt. 2
Here I am for a belated part two. I apologize for taking so long but I hope it will be worth the wait. I mentioned that one issue that comes up in the role system is simply that the roles themselves can get in the way and screw things up trying to keep everything balanced. This area is a bit more subjective but can do a lot to impact fun as well as being common in video games as well as tabletop games. In essence it's a matter of things feeling overly similar, or 'samey'. IE two classes that are supposed to be different and distinct end up feeling identical in results and play.
In tabletop games I would argue this is somewhat easier to notice than it is in video games, the main reason I say this is that a video game can mask similar mechanics with graphics and thematic things that a tabletop game has to do a lot more work to conjure. Now things feeling samey is somewhat subject to interpretation and it can come from a lot of different things and have different levels of annoyance or frustration for the person working on things. Some matter more and some matter less, and I will try to address them quickly.
One area is when different classes in the same role start to feel samey, this could be due to similar mechanics or just because build information and damage output end up near identical. This can be frustrating in some regards but it isn't necessarily a major issue. In video games the mechanics, graphics, etc. can be utilized to make the differing classes seem more dissimilar while their overall output is about identical. In a tabletop game this is somewhat more obvious but it can be fairly manageable so long as the gameplay elements keep the classes feeling distinct or at least different enough so that the player doesn't wonder why there are two classes if they functionally do the same thing and are identical in most regards.
Another area has to do with different aspects of the same class, IE if there are different build options but both end up being about the same. On the one hand this can be somewhat expected, but when literally everything seems to be identical a problem crops up, the variant options seem superfluous when the end result is the same. It can make the player feel like their choice meant nothing and it can also feel like the book or supplement that the new option was put in was ultimately a waste. The way this can happen is if power choices, augmentation options etc. end up with a character functionally identical mechanically to the build of another type.
The basic problem is this, if classes feel samey, or if allegedly different options for the same class feel samey, it means that the designers screwed up. Part of the fun in a game that offers customization is making a character that feels unique, that is YOUR character, when the ability to do that is compromised the game suffers a bit. It gets worse when this sort of thing ends up being a means to nip system mastery in the bud, essentially making any abilities that improve hitting, defenses, etc. as a necessary and assumed thing, thus ensuring that there will be little to no ability to make your character 'better' than anyone else. The reason I link this as a problem the role system faces or at least tends to conjure more is that roles by nature have limits and locks on them, a healer should not be doing more damage than a straight damage dealer for example and this can lead to overreaction by designers and a fear that any customization could break the roles set up.
In tabletop games I would argue this is somewhat easier to notice than it is in video games, the main reason I say this is that a video game can mask similar mechanics with graphics and thematic things that a tabletop game has to do a lot more work to conjure. Now things feeling samey is somewhat subject to interpretation and it can come from a lot of different things and have different levels of annoyance or frustration for the person working on things. Some matter more and some matter less, and I will try to address them quickly.
One area is when different classes in the same role start to feel samey, this could be due to similar mechanics or just because build information and damage output end up near identical. This can be frustrating in some regards but it isn't necessarily a major issue. In video games the mechanics, graphics, etc. can be utilized to make the differing classes seem more dissimilar while their overall output is about identical. In a tabletop game this is somewhat more obvious but it can be fairly manageable so long as the gameplay elements keep the classes feeling distinct or at least different enough so that the player doesn't wonder why there are two classes if they functionally do the same thing and are identical in most regards.
Another area has to do with different aspects of the same class, IE if there are different build options but both end up being about the same. On the one hand this can be somewhat expected, but when literally everything seems to be identical a problem crops up, the variant options seem superfluous when the end result is the same. It can make the player feel like their choice meant nothing and it can also feel like the book or supplement that the new option was put in was ultimately a waste. The way this can happen is if power choices, augmentation options etc. end up with a character functionally identical mechanically to the build of another type.
The basic problem is this, if classes feel samey, or if allegedly different options for the same class feel samey, it means that the designers screwed up. Part of the fun in a game that offers customization is making a character that feels unique, that is YOUR character, when the ability to do that is compromised the game suffers a bit. It gets worse when this sort of thing ends up being a means to nip system mastery in the bud, essentially making any abilities that improve hitting, defenses, etc. as a necessary and assumed thing, thus ensuring that there will be little to no ability to make your character 'better' than anyone else. The reason I link this as a problem the role system faces or at least tends to conjure more is that roles by nature have limits and locks on them, a healer should not be doing more damage than a straight damage dealer for example and this can lead to overreaction by designers and a fear that any customization could break the roles set up.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
4th Editions good points
I’m going to be a bit rough on 4th edition and while plenty of people are likely to agree that it deserves some of the lumps it’s getting it also needs to be pointed out that they actually did do some things very right. Some of them aren’t necessarily ideal for all games but they were improvements or at least worthwhile ideas. I’ll try to cover each of them and explain where I think things went well and where…well where they kind of screwed up. The main point of this though is that because I have seen a lot of examples of people strongly disliking 4th edition the goal here is to provide a kind of counter as well as try to give a more balanced take on what worked and what didn’t and trying to figure out why. Now I stress that pretty much all of this is opinion but I will explain my views as much as I can on each.
One idea that was a major winner in my view was the change they made to hitpoints. Just to clarify hitpoints were an abstraction showing how much damage you could take before you died. In the earlier games you started out small, especially if you were an arcane spellcaster, and in many cases even if you were incredibly hardy one good sword hit could knock you out or even kill you. The main issue I have with this is that it wasn’t a matter of doing something stupid and dying, it was a stray shot killing someone who had just started. It was making a situation where you could easily go through two or three characters in one night at low levels, especially at first through third level. The issue with this is threefold. First, new players were likely to experience a great deal of frustration, losing one character let alone two or more could make them wonder what the point is (and I am mostly using D&D as the example here, I know some games with very fast generation can allow for instant generation and thus death is less an issue). Second is that when starting the game a player is, at least in theory, learning their characters abilities and the rules of the game at low levels the game should have some form of training wheels be it more durability, comparatively fast recovery or something in that nature. Third was simply that it meant that the players weren’t constantly outnumbering each enemy they faced, IE four people to kill an orc or goblin creatures not exactly known for their supreme power.
Greater hitpoints meant that a player could handle attacks from a few more creatures, it also meant that they had time to try to get a handle on their abilities. They could learn about what their class did, what the others in the group were capable of, and figure out how to use abilities together. Part of it was also that hitpoints were gained more slowly, a flat small amount each level rather than wild swings as levels progressed. It made it easier to balance and build encounters on the designers end as well as helping things on the playing end. An encounter could exist where the players were outnumbered and not end with their characters all dead. It also meant that the players could be a bit more daring, stupidity would likely still end up with a dead or badly injured character but now they were unlikely to lose one simply due to one bit of bad luck or a rookie mistake.
The second improvement would be in the reintroduction of the roles system. I say reintroduction because in a lot of ways what they did was simply put in a more codified version of what we had back at the start of the game ‘Fighter, Thief, Magic User, Cleric’ or ‘Defender, Striker, Controller, Leader.’ The role system caught a lot of flack, claiming that it was ‘video gamey’ but the truth is that most games, at least many fantasy ones, run with the idea of a class focused on damage, a class focused on being ‘tough’ a class that heals and probably some skill classes or AoE ones. The concept of roles existed but either weren’t as codified or weren’t set in stone. The role system allowed for a few things, from a design standpoint it helped benchmark class abilities and figure out if something seemed too high or low since they had a clear set of parameters to test it against. From a playing standpoint, well it helped to know what the class was meant to do, in 3rd edition there were classes that I seriously had no bloody clue what they were meant to do because their design felt off, a class with full armor proficiency and full weapon proficiency and yet with the same attack bonus as a primary caster is a class that seems like the designers weren’t really thinking or at least weren’t considering how such a design looked. In some cases a class was made that was interesting but didn’t seem to have a hint as to what it was meant to do or how it worked in a group.
It also did help to avoid a problem that seems to come up frequently with classes that do the hybrid thing or ‘jack of all trades master of none’ schtick. The idea of a jack of all trades kind of class is nice in theory but in practice they will usually run into one of two walls. In one case their abilities are spread too thin to be anything more than middling in any area, if you have to take over for a teammate that falls you can’t really duplicate their skills in that role or you often just find yourself outperformed in everything. The other side of it is when a class is too potent, say 75% ability in a few roles of a base class coupled with synergy and while they might not be as good at X as the class focused on it they’re close enough and bring other things to the table so that the non hybrid ends up being worse in comparison. It can be a tricky balance and it often either falls into over or under power. There is also the fact that it can be hard to objectively determine balance when clear roles aren’t established and many classes can perform multiple roles, in some cases they can do it nearly simultaneously.
I also give them partial credit for making the monsters more interesting, or maybe it’s more accurate to say making the battles work more cleanly. At low levels players could face swarms of enemies, the minion rules and higher starting hitpoints made things like goblins and orcs a threat and it wasn’t a situation where you needed four people to kill one of them. The battles felt more interesting, the players felt stronger and scope of the campaign felt more epic. Also the idea of having monsters in different style categories similar to player roles helped new DMs design encounters and things like Elite and Solo monsters also helped people set up fights with a clearer concept of scale and threat.
They also did manage to make good on the promise of greatly reducing dependency on magic items. Bonuses to hit and damage and various things provided by items were often less important than player abilities and powers and I actually think that this was a fairly good thing. That being said, the changes did help make it so that you were no longer a set of items wearing a character for some of the classes, now the magic items while useful were no longer the defining characteristics.
In later posts I will point out flaws and issues and why my group walked away from 4th. Some of their initial plans went haywire and some things went wonky, but at the very least 4th edition did some good things and I feel they should be mentioned first.
One idea that was a major winner in my view was the change they made to hitpoints. Just to clarify hitpoints were an abstraction showing how much damage you could take before you died. In the earlier games you started out small, especially if you were an arcane spellcaster, and in many cases even if you were incredibly hardy one good sword hit could knock you out or even kill you. The main issue I have with this is that it wasn’t a matter of doing something stupid and dying, it was a stray shot killing someone who had just started. It was making a situation where you could easily go through two or three characters in one night at low levels, especially at first through third level. The issue with this is threefold. First, new players were likely to experience a great deal of frustration, losing one character let alone two or more could make them wonder what the point is (and I am mostly using D&D as the example here, I know some games with very fast generation can allow for instant generation and thus death is less an issue). Second is that when starting the game a player is, at least in theory, learning their characters abilities and the rules of the game at low levels the game should have some form of training wheels be it more durability, comparatively fast recovery or something in that nature. Third was simply that it meant that the players weren’t constantly outnumbering each enemy they faced, IE four people to kill an orc or goblin creatures not exactly known for their supreme power.
Greater hitpoints meant that a player could handle attacks from a few more creatures, it also meant that they had time to try to get a handle on their abilities. They could learn about what their class did, what the others in the group were capable of, and figure out how to use abilities together. Part of it was also that hitpoints were gained more slowly, a flat small amount each level rather than wild swings as levels progressed. It made it easier to balance and build encounters on the designers end as well as helping things on the playing end. An encounter could exist where the players were outnumbered and not end with their characters all dead. It also meant that the players could be a bit more daring, stupidity would likely still end up with a dead or badly injured character but now they were unlikely to lose one simply due to one bit of bad luck or a rookie mistake.
The second improvement would be in the reintroduction of the roles system. I say reintroduction because in a lot of ways what they did was simply put in a more codified version of what we had back at the start of the game ‘Fighter, Thief, Magic User, Cleric’ or ‘Defender, Striker, Controller, Leader.’ The role system caught a lot of flack, claiming that it was ‘video gamey’ but the truth is that most games, at least many fantasy ones, run with the idea of a class focused on damage, a class focused on being ‘tough’ a class that heals and probably some skill classes or AoE ones. The concept of roles existed but either weren’t as codified or weren’t set in stone. The role system allowed for a few things, from a design standpoint it helped benchmark class abilities and figure out if something seemed too high or low since they had a clear set of parameters to test it against. From a playing standpoint, well it helped to know what the class was meant to do, in 3rd edition there were classes that I seriously had no bloody clue what they were meant to do because their design felt off, a class with full armor proficiency and full weapon proficiency and yet with the same attack bonus as a primary caster is a class that seems like the designers weren’t really thinking or at least weren’t considering how such a design looked. In some cases a class was made that was interesting but didn’t seem to have a hint as to what it was meant to do or how it worked in a group.
It also did help to avoid a problem that seems to come up frequently with classes that do the hybrid thing or ‘jack of all trades master of none’ schtick. The idea of a jack of all trades kind of class is nice in theory but in practice they will usually run into one of two walls. In one case their abilities are spread too thin to be anything more than middling in any area, if you have to take over for a teammate that falls you can’t really duplicate their skills in that role or you often just find yourself outperformed in everything. The other side of it is when a class is too potent, say 75% ability in a few roles of a base class coupled with synergy and while they might not be as good at X as the class focused on it they’re close enough and bring other things to the table so that the non hybrid ends up being worse in comparison. It can be a tricky balance and it often either falls into over or under power. There is also the fact that it can be hard to objectively determine balance when clear roles aren’t established and many classes can perform multiple roles, in some cases they can do it nearly simultaneously.
I also give them partial credit for making the monsters more interesting, or maybe it’s more accurate to say making the battles work more cleanly. At low levels players could face swarms of enemies, the minion rules and higher starting hitpoints made things like goblins and orcs a threat and it wasn’t a situation where you needed four people to kill one of them. The battles felt more interesting, the players felt stronger and scope of the campaign felt more epic. Also the idea of having monsters in different style categories similar to player roles helped new DMs design encounters and things like Elite and Solo monsters also helped people set up fights with a clearer concept of scale and threat.
They also did manage to make good on the promise of greatly reducing dependency on magic items. Bonuses to hit and damage and various things provided by items were often less important than player abilities and powers and I actually think that this was a fairly good thing. That being said, the changes did help make it so that you were no longer a set of items wearing a character for some of the classes, now the magic items while useful were no longer the defining characteristics.
In later posts I will point out flaws and issues and why my group walked away from 4th. Some of their initial plans went haywire and some things went wonky, but at the very least 4th edition did some good things and I feel they should be mentioned first.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Game Weights
Tabletop games, computer games, board games, all of them have a certain degree of weighting involved. The idea is where the majority of the power, the focus of the system, and the theoretical goals of the game lie. In my experience you either will see games weighted on the side of the player, games weighted centrally, or games weighted in favor of the system. Now, an important note, here is that none of these is necessarily inherently better or worse than the others, however they tend to lend themselves more easily to certain types of games. For example, a game weighted more towards the players tends to create excellent heroic games, more neutrally set games are theoretically more versatile and able to work with many genres, and the ones weighted more towards the system are best used for horror and survival games.
Games weighted in favor of the players are games that expect the players to win. The players are on average more durable and more powerful than the monsters and it is relatively difficult to lose if the game is used in its standard format. The players can be challenged but it is indeed difficult to wipe them out. Most heroic tapletop games follow this premise and in fact the d20 system could be said to be weighted heavily in favor of the players. A heroic game tends to give the players a greater margin of error, early levels have training wheels and the game tends to focus on approximate escalation, the players will sometimes face things stronger than them but their collective abilities will almost always outmatch it, they will also have more escape hatches and panic buttons than their opponents can match. In these games death for a character ranges from impossible to easily recoverable. Some games are actually set up where the player characters cannot die, one of the versions of 7th sea is like that. Others have death, but death is fairly easy to get around, either offering ressurection or similar means to return the character to life and continue on.
Games that have more neutral weight are fairly rare admittedly, but they do exist. By and large these games are point based, in this setup everyone has the same abilities to pull from and similar rules on the points spread. Characters can die and probably will. However, the idea in this case is more that the game assumes roughly equal chance between everything. These games are also a bit more diverse, usually allocating build points based off of the genrea involved. A game where the party is meant to hide and survive in a wasteland ruled by powerful mutants will have far fewer points than a superhero game for example. The theoretical idea here is that this game might show more skill, but it can also be problematic. SOmeone with a greater level of system mastery can wipe out less skilled people, and synergy is more important. Neutrally weighted games also tend to be somewhat unfocused, the game doesn't necessarily 'care' what each side does, the goal is more to create a game that is generally workable and the focus of balance is more towards ensuring that nothing shattering comes in rather than defending one side of the screen or the other.
The games weighted in favor of the system are a bit more complex, most of them are games like Chaosims Call of Cthulhu or certain whitewolf games. In this regard the game is either actively set against the players or it is designed to make the game essentially an ordeal for them. The game is set heavily against the players, odds are that their opponents least soldiers are 50 times stronger than they could ever be, they need all their cunning, caution and luck just to get away let alone have any hope of harming the thing. In these games you don't slay great monsters and horrors, instead you usually fight tooth and nail, more than half the group dying, to stop a cultist from summoning a great horror. Your greatest victories are phyrric, and your successes only fleeting. But there is another type, in this game you might be reasonably powerful, perhaps even above average. The problem instead is that you face a goal, a challenge, that does not yield to power, to most wit, instead you play the role of a tragic hero, perhaps to find redemption but more likely to become a figure who is cheered on despite knowing they will not succeed. White Wolf has several games like this, one of them being Promethean. The game itself is hard to describe but the tale of sisyphus is probably the closest example, however in this regard someone is constantly throwing stones at him as well as trying to pour grease on the hill.
These game types can allow for a lot of different interesting stories, for those starting in a genre these games can help explain and set a tone and scene. For those more experienced they can even make a horror game using a game weighted towards the players or a heroic game with a system weighted against them.
Games weighted in favor of the players are games that expect the players to win. The players are on average more durable and more powerful than the monsters and it is relatively difficult to lose if the game is used in its standard format. The players can be challenged but it is indeed difficult to wipe them out. Most heroic tapletop games follow this premise and in fact the d20 system could be said to be weighted heavily in favor of the players. A heroic game tends to give the players a greater margin of error, early levels have training wheels and the game tends to focus on approximate escalation, the players will sometimes face things stronger than them but their collective abilities will almost always outmatch it, they will also have more escape hatches and panic buttons than their opponents can match. In these games death for a character ranges from impossible to easily recoverable. Some games are actually set up where the player characters cannot die, one of the versions of 7th sea is like that. Others have death, but death is fairly easy to get around, either offering ressurection or similar means to return the character to life and continue on.
Games that have more neutral weight are fairly rare admittedly, but they do exist. By and large these games are point based, in this setup everyone has the same abilities to pull from and similar rules on the points spread. Characters can die and probably will. However, the idea in this case is more that the game assumes roughly equal chance between everything. These games are also a bit more diverse, usually allocating build points based off of the genrea involved. A game where the party is meant to hide and survive in a wasteland ruled by powerful mutants will have far fewer points than a superhero game for example. The theoretical idea here is that this game might show more skill, but it can also be problematic. SOmeone with a greater level of system mastery can wipe out less skilled people, and synergy is more important. Neutrally weighted games also tend to be somewhat unfocused, the game doesn't necessarily 'care' what each side does, the goal is more to create a game that is generally workable and the focus of balance is more towards ensuring that nothing shattering comes in rather than defending one side of the screen or the other.
The games weighted in favor of the system are a bit more complex, most of them are games like Chaosims Call of Cthulhu or certain whitewolf games. In this regard the game is either actively set against the players or it is designed to make the game essentially an ordeal for them. The game is set heavily against the players, odds are that their opponents least soldiers are 50 times stronger than they could ever be, they need all their cunning, caution and luck just to get away let alone have any hope of harming the thing. In these games you don't slay great monsters and horrors, instead you usually fight tooth and nail, more than half the group dying, to stop a cultist from summoning a great horror. Your greatest victories are phyrric, and your successes only fleeting. But there is another type, in this game you might be reasonably powerful, perhaps even above average. The problem instead is that you face a goal, a challenge, that does not yield to power, to most wit, instead you play the role of a tragic hero, perhaps to find redemption but more likely to become a figure who is cheered on despite knowing they will not succeed. White Wolf has several games like this, one of them being Promethean. The game itself is hard to describe but the tale of sisyphus is probably the closest example, however in this regard someone is constantly throwing stones at him as well as trying to pour grease on the hill.
These game types can allow for a lot of different interesting stories, for those starting in a genre these games can help explain and set a tone and scene. For those more experienced they can even make a horror game using a game weighted towards the players or a heroic game with a system weighted against them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
