Perfect Imbalance in RPGs

This is bad decision and I am surprised that experienced RPG developer thinks that way. It would make more sense in one-hero RPGs (usually class-less), but not in party RPGs where you need to have all classes generally more unique in order to give each of them some purpose. Some people already wrote that here.

Right now, classes are very distinct in PoE because they're mostly defined by their class abilities. There's not much use for making an archer from any other class than Ranger. If this is a downside is another matter.

As I have said before, to me playing an RPG is like taking a journey in a world defined by someone else. As such, all their intended imbalances I can take in stride. If a game presents me with the choice between playing a fighter or a mage, and the mage is flat out more powerful because that's how this particular fantasy world works, that's alright with me. As long as the fighter is playable and plays out differently from the mage, I will usually try to play both.

Of course, once you enter the realm of unintended imbalance - bugs, glitches, or simply flawed math - things get a bit different/ ugly. Still, if it's not too inhibiting in the choices I have, I can tolerate some of that too (hint: no RPG will ever ship without some of this).

Sawyer is mostly right about trash options - there's really no point in giving the player choices that they'd either be a) dumb to make (because they could have figured it out by RTFM) or b) naive to make (because there's no way you could have told beforehand that your sneaky thief will end up being useless halfway through the game). So, out with the trash. Of course, if you take "trash" to mean "every choice that's not quite as good as some other choice"... weeeeell.....but that's for another day.
 
This whole balancing issue appeared as a result of online spreadsheet gaming. Basically, every class has to perform the same or people will complain that their particular class is not up to par.

I understand why this is a problem in MMOs, but for some strange reason the same philosophy seems to have found its way into single player games. It's rather annoying, as I prefer complex character systems where there are good and bad options and/or systems where you have several characters and they compliment each other.

Here's an example: A Rogue can bring utility, such as scouting, traps, lockpicking, assassinations and so on. A Knight is the epitome of a front line fighter. The two are quite different, which is a good thing. I cringe every time I play a game where some leather armored type can take on a heavy plate wearing guy in a straight up fight. That's like disabling a tank with a screwdriver. However, a Knight and Rogue can easily compliment each other by working together, which is how I prefer it. For them to be identical in the name of balance is rather uninteresting, and flat out silly.

Bottom line: I don't mind spreadsheet design and gaming in online games. In fact, I understand it completely, as I have been hardcore online gamer in the past. However, it does come with a price: Classes become less distinct and generally more boring. Hence, it should not be used in single player games, as there's simply no reason to do so. It doesn't matter if classes are completely balanced in such a setting - the important thing is that it's fun, and that it allows interesting character building.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,583
Location
Bergen
"Trash options" are not "sub-optimal options". They are "you can't finish the game if you pick it" options.

There is plenty of sub-optimal options in PoE, like Archer Fighter or Melee Wizard/Cipher.

I think there is an important distinction that needs to be made here, that of "trash/sub-optimal options" and that of "trash/sub-optimal builds". The former would be an option that is inherently worse, the second would be a set of options that results in a sub-optimal combination. The former is something that I view as a problem, as it is something inherent to the game that does not work well, the later I think adds to the game, as it gives me room to plan out my character, trying to find the best possible options. When you can make sub-optimal builds, it is important for the game to give the player enough information to actually make informed decisions, rather than expecting him/her to guess what might work together (here a lot of older RPGs did a rather lousy job, as the player could well end up picking skills that were useless, but the player had no way of knowing this (Realms of Arkania is big offender here), while many modern games seem to be so afraid of this that they would rather homogenize everything rather than trying to figure out how to make every option that differs from the baseline (deals X damage/heals Y damage) useful).
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2011
Messages
1,756
Location
Stockholm, Sweden
Grognardia:

Links of interest

The original D&D discussion


PS:
Muscle Wizard:

93gdCcm.jpg


Cool article about balancing that describes most problems PoE will face:

Warrior, Wizard, Thief: Class, Balance and Archetypes in Computer RPGs


...The problem isn't that a classless system is doomed to fail in one area or another but that it represents a more complex model of the world and must take into account a wider range of variables and address a greater range of needs. By deepening the representation of the fantasy archetypes, by providing thieves with richer thieving experiences, wizards with subtler magic experiences, and warriors with more demanding combat experiences the developers can appeal to a wider range of players without sacrificing balance or discrediting the archetypes. The solution is NOT to reduce gameplay to a perfectly balanced plane of combat bonuses and penalties, but to expand gameplay to new dimensions of activity where these tradeoffs are no longer required and no longer make sense. If you're going to give players the option of creating new archetypes, you need to give those archetypes a world to live in.

Good Luck, Obsidian!
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
19,818
Location
Germany
Back
Top Bottom