WoTC_krg posts on game design theory

[Moon_Goddess]

My problem is the whole approach comes the wrong angle. With magic it's very important to balance White against Green, because they are playing against each other....

My Fighter and Bobs Cleric arn't against each other. They're working together toward the same goal. That goal being to tell a good story.

 

[The Little Raven]

My problem is the whole approach comes the wrong angle. With magic it's very important to balance White against Green, because they are playing against each other....

My Fighter and Bobs Cleric arn't against each other. They're working together toward the same goal. That goal being to tell a good story.

You still have to balance them against eachother in the fact that they will not intrude on eachother's role too much and make sure all their math scales at roughly the same rate. Green is more about summoning creatures than White, which is more about protection. Likewise, the cleric is more about healing than the fighter, which is more about defending and damage. Balanced math is still necessary to make sure one doesn't overshadow the other.

 

[FadedC]

My Fighter and Bobs Cleric arn't against each other. They're working together toward the same goal. That goal being to tell a good story.

But if the cleric can do as much damage as the fighter while still casting spells and having a million times more utility, you'd have to agree that this is a problem. They may not compete directly, but if class A is too much better then class B, then anyone playing class B will feel inferior, and in the long run people will simply stop playing that class. I might argue that this is an even worse problem in a RPG where people except to have alot of options then it is in a card game where people have come to accept there being a few "proper" builds.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The idea that they have to have a mathematician to design an rpg is ludicrous. Sure D&D should require simple math, but nothing beyond calculating base attack or Thac0 or subtracting hit points should be required. And thet shouldn't require a mathematician.

Whoa.

 

[Andre]

Yeah. Point-buy systems lend themselves to munchkinism and min-maxing on levels almost never seen in D&D; they're wonderfully flexible, but that flexibility can be used for bad ends, creating hyper-focused psychotic killbots and whatnot that spoil the game for other players.

Any flexibility can be abused. The worst I ever saw was in a 3.0 game where the GM told us to create 19th level characters for a module he wanted to run. One player created a mind flayer/sorcerer that was light-years ahead of the rest of us. When I pointed out all the illegal things he did in his build, he wasn't happy...but he always designed characters that way, regardless of the system.

I'm not sure why point-buy gets so much more grief over this aspect than class-based systems. Short of giving a player no options at all, there will always be some who can and will design the most powerful build. 4E will be no different.

I appreciate the effort WOTC is putting in to minimize this issue, but design only takes you so far. Ultimately it will come down to the players and GM working together to make sure everyone has fun and no one takes up too much of the spotlight.

 

[The Little Raven]

Any flexibility can be abused. The worst I ever saw was in a 3.0 game where the GM told us to create 19th level characters for a module he wanted to run. One player created a mind flayer/sorcerer that was light-years ahead of the rest of us. When I pointed out all the illegal things he did in his build, he wasn't happy...but he always designed characters that way, regardless of the system.

Well, this example doesn't really demonstrate anything about flexible systems being easily abused, it demonstrates that you play with a guy that cheats.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Whoa.

Wulf wins the "Most Succinct Response That is Fair and Accurate" contest.

Sadly he placed last in "Most Helpful Response."

Of course, I probably came in second place and second-to-last place, respectively.

 

[Vigilance]

My problem is the whole approach comes the wrong angle. With magic it's very important to balance White against Green, because they are playing against each other....

My Fighter and Bobs Cleric arn't against each other. They're working together toward the same goal. That goal being to tell a good story.

Ah, but you still need to balance the numbers.

And the fact that your fighter (fast BAB), and Bob's Cleric (medium BAB) and Jim's Wizard (slow BAB) will frequently BE working together to fight the same beastie makes the math MORE complex, not less.

This is why only half the 20 level range (levels 5-15, the so-called "sweet spot") are optimal.

The numbers interacted in ways they didn't predict.

Bringing on someone who CAN help them predict how all these numbers will work together is smart.

The math shouldn't be the thing that guides design 100%, but knowing the math is crucial.

 

[TwinBahamut]

My problem is the whole approach comes the wrong angle. With magic it's very important to balance White against Green, because they are playing against each other....

My Fighter and Bobs Cleric arn't against each other. They're working together toward the same goal. That goal being to tell a good story.

To go into the same Starcraft example he is making heavy use of himself...

It is not just balancing Zerg against Protoss that he is talking about. It is also balancing the Protoss' Zealots and Dragoons against the Protoss' Reavers and Carriers. The Reavers and carriers will be fighting alongside the Zealots and Dragoons, but they still need to be balanced against each other or else a "dominant strategy" will emerge in which Carriers and Reavers are so good that you will never want to use Zealots and Dragoons, and would be defeated in a match if you do so.

To bring it back to the Magic example, it is not just balancing White against Green, it is balancing the latest Green token-producing Thalid against some new big Green saproling-eating brute. Both could be placed in the same deck, but you don't want them one to be a waste of mana and a card draw when compared to the other.

What he is talking about exactly applies to D&D game balance, when you have to make sure both Clerics and Fighters are viable picks, and that any feat or power a Fighter might pick is balanced enough that it is viable.

Just as choosing whether you want to build a Green Saproling deck or a Red direct-damage deck should be only a matter of personal preference, rather than a choice between which one is absolutely stronger, the choice between being a Greatsword using Fighter and a Staff-using Wizard should be a matter of only personal choice.

I think they are spproaching this from the best possible mindset.

 

[Ahglock]

But if the cleric can do as much damage as the fighter while still casting spells and having a million times more utility, you'd have to agree that this is a problem. They may not compete directly, but if class A is too much better then class B, then anyone playing class B will feel inferior, and in the long run people will simply stop playing that class. I might argue that this is an even worse problem in a RPG where people except to have alot of options then it is in a card game where people have come to accept there being a few "proper" builds.

I kid of assumed that is what he meant.

He isn't sure that they are balancing it so the classes help the overall goal of fun and a successful adventure an equal amount, but that they may be being balanced in deathmatch style ways.

Can't say that is what the designers are doing or not, but I see plenty of players saying my X class should be able to defeat your Y class 50% of the time, like D&d was some PVP game.