I think “balance” can become a stand of trees that blocks sight of the forest.
The whole point of a game is to create a compelling experience, but I can see it being very easy to get lost in trying to create systems that “make sense” and moreso systems that are “balanced.” Systems that make sense can be very satisfying, sure… sure. But they can easily be a tedious, unfulfilling drag to put up with. Same with “balance” if the underlying concept would otherwise being 100% dominant in all circumstances, but has to be nerfed to make it work within the confines of the game.
A lot of “games with sword AND guns” have a tendency to do this. The first time I recall seeing this in Skies of Arcadia, it didn’t bother me. Still, having a game do more to showcase how guns >>> swords, specifically Greedfall, will always make me question the logic from here on out.
“Is this fun?” is a more important question than, “is this ‘balanced?’” Still… balance *is* still important if you want to give a player more than one way up the hill that’s not overly handicapping themselves. Balance against the game is less important because the game has no feelings, but balanced against other playstyles is still legitimate. Unfortunately, the “the game must always win!” mentality means that any player option that’s overpowered compared to others is more likely to be nerfed rather than the lollygaggers getting brought up to par...
Your point about power fantasy is huge. I used to manage a coffee shop and every store at this company had a daily trivia question that, if answered correctly, would give the customer 10 cents off their order. I finally realized that most people like trivia because they like to feel smart and they feel smart when they answer trivia questions correctly. There are other reasons, and I'm sure there are lots of exceptions. But the average person just wants to feel smart by sometimes getting the right answer to a trivia question.
I think the same is true for video games. Most players want to feel a sense of accomplishment more than they want to know the game was designed for maximum challenge.
More board games could take hints from computer-based variants.
The Battletech board game has rules for mechs falling over, a serious problem if it happens to you. It's a complicated mess of situations, requiring various dice rolls with different modifiers when things happen, eg. being in rough ground, some attacks, taking leg damage, gyro hits etc. etc. It's easy to forget, and easy to overlook modifiers.
The computer game in contrast just has 'stability damage' for each mech. Different actions increase it, and when it reaches a threshold, you automatically fall over. It makes much more sense and is far more tactical.
The board game could keep the dice roll (which is exciting and fun in a board game, but feels random in a computer game), but base the whole rest of the system on the simple, single stability damage system.
Solasta had the attunement and ready rules and I think both were improvements over the approach in BG3. In BG3 you end up with 10 unused magic items (just in case) sitting in inventory by the end of the game. Attunement is a good play balance rule. The ready rule allows for a tactical approach to combat. Both could easily have been implemented in BG3 as they were in Solasta.
Exactly! I dont want a power fantasy that just caters to my ego. I want to be challenged and have to make tough choices. I want to grow in spirit and soul as a human being only interacting with powerfantasies that enables my ego is just stupid. Sorta like taking drugs because they feel good and pretend to not care about the implications.
That being said. MTDS is also unsexy because it means the DM/designer has control-behavior issues that affects the fun for everyone in a bad way.
Play is not about emotional comfort but rather challanges so you can learn something about the world and yourself. The accomplishement reward system is way more benefitial than instant gratification but it also requires that you put yourself and your emotions on the line.
"Play is not about emotional comfort but rather challanges so you can learn something about the world and yourself."
...fuckin' says who, man?
I'm not roleplaying as a toddler learning object permanence, I wanna be a badass. Get everything in the way of making me a badass, out of the way. It's not like BG3 can't be VERY challenging, but it also doesn't prevent those who want to walk into every situation like it's The Walk and they're The Cock from doing so.
But... I quite like setting up overwatch cones of fire in XCOM! Admittedly, that's a game very much presenting itself as rappelling off the roof of a building and shouting "TACTICAL!" the whole way down, which isn't necessarily the vibe D&D combat is going for. But it's not a *bad* part of the turn-based combat toolkit.
For a tactics game, readying actions/opportunity fire is absolutely necessary to make anything work.
In D&D, in my experience, it gets really fiddly and doesn't add much. But I imagine, in tabletop, you have to keep it because otherwise people miss turns, and missing turns is never fun.
I wonder how will your game run in a ttrpg setting, what are the ruleset, how do you build you character and how do you work on your skills, like how does shaping being represented in a tabletop setting
Its common knowledge among behaviorial-science. Thats just how play is designed for the human psyche. Your parents and community are supposed to give you emotional support.
You have to ask yourself why you want to be a badass because play in its nature will not give you this satisfaction in a longterm healthy way, im sorry bro, its just how it is.
Sure, its cool to feel like that now and then and games CAN be very good at that too. But its not the singular feel you should get from them because that might mean you have some issues with your self-esteem. Catering to this by constantly looking for ways to feel like a badass does not solve the problem but, just like addiction, triggers you to look for more intense ways to satistfy your ego.
Sorry to break it down like this, Im not trying to trigger you or anything, Im just explaining basic psychology behind these mechanics.
I don't know... Knights of Chalice 2 manages to incorporate grappling, disarming, pinning, feints and ready actions and it is awesome. Sure, when you're behind the table those things are confusing and require a lot of time and additional dice rolls. But computer game is EXACTLY the place for such additional rules! Because computer automates away everything but decision-making.
It's FUN to pin down enemy's wizard so he can't cast any spells that require hands. It's FUN to enlarge your character and grapple a god-damned giant (OK, KoTC can do this, because it don't actually shows it, and BG3 would have to show it because it's more realistic, but, well, this is still fun). And I think many people love ready actions. Though they actually pose a huge problem - availability of ready actions means you get much more defense-oriented gameplay (X-Com) than without them, because playing offense becomes much more dangerous, and a lot of player would prefer to sit tight and wait for AI to make the first move. Still, it's a valid way to play...
On thing I CAN agree about is changes to rest rules. Tough 5e is already went into right direction with them, as in previous editions you basically HAD to have a healer in your party, or you would months of in-game time healing wounds from a single play session. It kind of works in TT, but in CRPG I just want to press "rest" to heal up completely, without thinking about casting healing spells or using healing potions - these things are for in-combat use (or, in case of potions, for hoarding until the end of the game).
Actually, I should clarify why grappling rules suck. Two reasons.
1. It's a whole new set of rules. Unless you are grappling constantly, when in the middle of a pitched battle you say "I grapple", there will now be a momentum-destroying 5 minute lull while rulesbooks get pulled out and whole new sets of rules get loaded into short-term memory. Ugh.
And nobody can just ignore the grappling rules, because #2:
2. Grappling restricts who can attack who. If Thunk the Barbarian is grappling the wizard boss, that means now I can't attack the wizard boss. Or can I? It depends on the attack and the rules system. Agh! Someone hand me the rulebook again!
If I'm about to attack the Giant Boss and Fred grapples it, I'm still going to attack the giant. Do I have a chance of accidentally hitting and killing Fred? Yes. Actually, that's why I'm doing it. More fool Fred for slow-dancing with the enemy I was about to shoot. He has it coming.
If you want to knock an enemy unconscious, D&D (and Baldur's Gate 3!!!) has a very simple, quick system to hit people non-lethally. For the love of God, just use that.
Once again, I understand how these rules are too complex for tabletop. But in KoTC I just click "grapple" action, and that's all. I mean, I never once used grapple in a tabletop game, and my GMs never expected me to use it. But being able to prevent a spellcaster from using large part of his repertoire without using a spell myself in KoTC was fun! And when AI used it on me, it was interesting challenge, too. Without it, non-caster character has no recourse against a caster, aside from killing him (especially if there are no Attack of Opportunity rules for casting). Well, some games have Trip action, which also prevents caster from acting for at least one turn, but Trip is actually stronger than grapple, and should be harder to execute, as prone characters usually suffer far more penalties than grappled characters.
Anyway, as long as Grapple is just a click away, and all calculations are done by computer, and restrictions that are associated with this status effect are clearly reported to player, I think it's actually fun and underused mechanics in CRPGs. And I DO have supporting evidence, in form at least one good game that implements it.
Of course, grapple isn't an (easy) option for more high-budget games, because it requires pair animations, and this stuff is super-costly pain in the ass. Then again, BG3 now has kissing animations for all races, which is almost the same thing :)
But games arent just about fun mate. Theyre about more than that, just like any movie or book that challenges you to use your wits, creativity and brains. Thats how you grow and evolve right? And dont say ”but I just wanna have fun while playing my games” because it just sounds like you have issues with life and wanna hide in escapism. Which is fine, but not very constructive.
That being said, I do agree that when rules become over complicated it feels like doing your taxes or some other rote beurocratic process. Theres a balance in there and FUN is not the sole savior.
Stabbing an evil wizard won't prevent him from blasting me with Fireball the next turn. Grappling/pinning him, though? That works. Of course, his minions will probably do their best to break this grapple before wizard's next turn, but let them come! Or maybe I DON'T have a sword. I have a dry-on-spells wizard of my own, who will remain mostly useless for the rest of combat... Unless he can overcome the DC and pin down enemy caster, giving the rest of the party a turn free of fireballs. He will probably fall to minions attack after that, but that one turn might well buy the victory!
And I don't get why you say missing turns is alternative to readying actions? Ready actions is a way to act in enemy's turn, to break, or at least meddle with initiative order, and make a turn-based game a bit less unrealistic (note that I LOVE TB games for this unrealism, and hate real-time, but ready actions/overwatch is a good mechanic, imo). It works especially well against flying melee attackers, as Solasta demonstrates, where you can't reach them with your melee weapons at all, unless you can wait for their attack, and strike them when they're close. It also works for counter-spelling, though it also can be implemented MTG-style, by asking the player if he wants to counter a spell whenever one is cast... To everyone's great annoyance (to be fair, Counterspell works exactly this way in Solasta, and yes, it is somewhat annoying).
A good example why acting in enemy's turn is important is Wasteland 2, which lacked Overwatch. It made melee characters overpowered, because they could reach ranged characters in cover during their turn completely unmolested, and proceed to demolish them with their superior close-combat damage, supplemented with stun, bleeding and other abilities. Trying such tactics in, say, X-Com would be far more risky (though not impossible, and certainly rewarding when it works, but X-Com games use wholly different balance than story RPGs).
"And I don't get why you say missing turns is alternative to readying actions?"
You ready an action because you don't want to do something now but you know you'll want to do it soon. (Best example: Opportunity fire, shooting when your opponent comes into view.)
If you can't ready an action, you either have to do something sub-optimal now or skip your turn. Neither is satisfying.
Ah, I see. Yes, these alternatives are unsatisfying. Though I guess the need for ready actions highly depends on the kind of balance the game has: a game where HPs are precious, and a single missed attack can get your character killed (X-Com) simply must have ready action, to prevent offensive playstyle from dominating, but in games where characters have large amount of health (e.g. Caves of Lore, which I'm playing right now, or your own games), it's not so important. BG3 and D&D in general is a borderline case: in early levels, your characters can easily die from a single attack, and the ability to do something in enemy's turn seems very important, but higher levels are much more resilient, both to physical attacks and to various magic, and so have a bit less need to be able to respond to enemy actions... Well, aside from stuff like counter-spelling Power Word: Kill and the likes!
Speaking of difficulty, I wonder what you thought (or still think!) of the Sword Coast Strategy mod in Baldur’s Gate 1 & 2. I recently had a go at the enhanced versions with SCS and Jeez! With Call for Help, sometimes the entire map came at me (bandit camp 😱) with mages pre-buffed and some magic users liberally casting dispels. All good on paper but in practice, times and again, it frustrates me in a way that none of your games ever did! I can’t put my finger on the exact reason but beating your bosses, however difficult, never feels protracted.
I think “balance” can become a stand of trees that blocks sight of the forest.
The whole point of a game is to create a compelling experience, but I can see it being very easy to get lost in trying to create systems that “make sense” and moreso systems that are “balanced.” Systems that make sense can be very satisfying, sure… sure. But they can easily be a tedious, unfulfilling drag to put up with. Same with “balance” if the underlying concept would otherwise being 100% dominant in all circumstances, but has to be nerfed to make it work within the confines of the game.
A lot of “games with sword AND guns” have a tendency to do this. The first time I recall seeing this in Skies of Arcadia, it didn’t bother me. Still, having a game do more to showcase how guns >>> swords, specifically Greedfall, will always make me question the logic from here on out.
“Is this fun?” is a more important question than, “is this ‘balanced?’” Still… balance *is* still important if you want to give a player more than one way up the hill that’s not overly handicapping themselves. Balance against the game is less important because the game has no feelings, but balanced against other playstyles is still legitimate. Unfortunately, the “the game must always win!” mentality means that any player option that’s overpowered compared to others is more likely to be nerfed rather than the lollygaggers getting brought up to par...
Your point about power fantasy is huge. I used to manage a coffee shop and every store at this company had a daily trivia question that, if answered correctly, would give the customer 10 cents off their order. I finally realized that most people like trivia because they like to feel smart and they feel smart when they answer trivia questions correctly. There are other reasons, and I'm sure there are lots of exceptions. But the average person just wants to feel smart by sometimes getting the right answer to a trivia question.
I think the same is true for video games. Most players want to feel a sense of accomplishment more than they want to know the game was designed for maximum challenge.
More board games could take hints from computer-based variants.
The Battletech board game has rules for mechs falling over, a serious problem if it happens to you. It's a complicated mess of situations, requiring various dice rolls with different modifiers when things happen, eg. being in rough ground, some attacks, taking leg damage, gyro hits etc. etc. It's easy to forget, and easy to overlook modifiers.
The computer game in contrast just has 'stability damage' for each mech. Different actions increase it, and when it reaches a threshold, you automatically fall over. It makes much more sense and is far more tactical.
The board game could keep the dice roll (which is exciting and fun in a board game, but feels random in a computer game), but base the whole rest of the system on the simple, single stability damage system.
Solasta had the attunement and ready rules and I think both were improvements over the approach in BG3. In BG3 you end up with 10 unused magic items (just in case) sitting in inventory by the end of the game. Attunement is a good play balance rule. The ready rule allows for a tactical approach to combat. Both could easily have been implemented in BG3 as they were in Solasta.
Exactly! I dont want a power fantasy that just caters to my ego. I want to be challenged and have to make tough choices. I want to grow in spirit and soul as a human being only interacting with powerfantasies that enables my ego is just stupid. Sorta like taking drugs because they feel good and pretend to not care about the implications.
That being said. MTDS is also unsexy because it means the DM/designer has control-behavior issues that affects the fun for everyone in a bad way.
Play is not about emotional comfort but rather challanges so you can learn something about the world and yourself. The accomplishement reward system is way more benefitial than instant gratification but it also requires that you put yourself and your emotions on the line.
"Play is not about emotional comfort but rather challanges so you can learn something about the world and yourself."
...fuckin' says who, man?
I'm not roleplaying as a toddler learning object permanence, I wanna be a badass. Get everything in the way of making me a badass, out of the way. It's not like BG3 can't be VERY challenging, but it also doesn't prevent those who want to walk into every situation like it's The Walk and they're The Cock from doing so.
You’re completely right. They kept what was fun and dumped the rest. I think it would make for a better tabletop gaming experience as well.
"Readying actions? GONE!"
But... I quite like setting up overwatch cones of fire in XCOM! Admittedly, that's a game very much presenting itself as rappelling off the roof of a building and shouting "TACTICAL!" the whole way down, which isn't necessarily the vibe D&D combat is going for. But it's not a *bad* part of the turn-based combat toolkit.
For a tactics game, readying actions/opportunity fire is absolutely necessary to make anything work.
In D&D, in my experience, it gets really fiddly and doesn't add much. But I imagine, in tabletop, you have to keep it because otherwise people miss turns, and missing turns is never fun.
(“BUt You CAN MAkE Up yOur OWn hoUsE ruleS!” Dude, these books aren’t cheap. Don’t make me design your stupid game for you.)
This point is so true, there is always some guy like that on Board Game Geeks or wherever when you want some rule clarification or give feedback.
"Just make your own houserule!" - like they figured out the big secret.
I dropped 90 bucks or whatever on this game to play a well designed game, not to design one myself.
I wonder how will your game run in a ttrpg setting, what are the ruleset, how do you build you character and how do you work on your skills, like how does shaping being represented in a tabletop setting
Its common knowledge among behaviorial-science. Thats just how play is designed for the human psyche. Your parents and community are supposed to give you emotional support.
You have to ask yourself why you want to be a badass because play in its nature will not give you this satisfaction in a longterm healthy way, im sorry bro, its just how it is.
Sure, its cool to feel like that now and then and games CAN be very good at that too. But its not the singular feel you should get from them because that might mean you have some issues with your self-esteem. Catering to this by constantly looking for ways to feel like a badass does not solve the problem but, just like addiction, triggers you to look for more intense ways to satistfy your ego.
Sorry to break it down like this, Im not trying to trigger you or anything, Im just explaining basic psychology behind these mechanics.
I don't know... Knights of Chalice 2 manages to incorporate grappling, disarming, pinning, feints and ready actions and it is awesome. Sure, when you're behind the table those things are confusing and require a lot of time and additional dice rolls. But computer game is EXACTLY the place for such additional rules! Because computer automates away everything but decision-making.
It's FUN to pin down enemy's wizard so he can't cast any spells that require hands. It's FUN to enlarge your character and grapple a god-damned giant (OK, KoTC can do this, because it don't actually shows it, and BG3 would have to show it because it's more realistic, but, well, this is still fun). And I think many people love ready actions. Though they actually pose a huge problem - availability of ready actions means you get much more defense-oriented gameplay (X-Com) than without them, because playing offense becomes much more dangerous, and a lot of player would prefer to sit tight and wait for AI to make the first move. Still, it's a valid way to play...
On thing I CAN agree about is changes to rest rules. Tough 5e is already went into right direction with them, as in previous editions you basically HAD to have a healer in your party, or you would months of in-game time healing wounds from a single play session. It kind of works in TT, but in CRPG I just want to press "rest" to heal up completely, without thinking about casting healing spells or using healing potions - these things are for in-combat use (or, in case of potions, for hoarding until the end of the game).
Actually, I should clarify why grappling rules suck. Two reasons.
1. It's a whole new set of rules. Unless you are grappling constantly, when in the middle of a pitched battle you say "I grapple", there will now be a momentum-destroying 5 minute lull while rulesbooks get pulled out and whole new sets of rules get loaded into short-term memory. Ugh.
And nobody can just ignore the grappling rules, because #2:
2. Grappling restricts who can attack who. If Thunk the Barbarian is grappling the wizard boss, that means now I can't attack the wizard boss. Or can I? It depends on the attack and the rules system. Agh! Someone hand me the rulebook again!
If I'm about to attack the Giant Boss and Fred grapples it, I'm still going to attack the giant. Do I have a chance of accidentally hitting and killing Fred? Yes. Actually, that's why I'm doing it. More fool Fred for slow-dancing with the enemy I was about to shoot. He has it coming.
If you want to knock an enemy unconscious, D&D (and Baldur's Gate 3!!!) has a very simple, quick system to hit people non-lethally. For the love of God, just use that.
Once again, I understand how these rules are too complex for tabletop. But in KoTC I just click "grapple" action, and that's all. I mean, I never once used grapple in a tabletop game, and my GMs never expected me to use it. But being able to prevent a spellcaster from using large part of his repertoire without using a spell myself in KoTC was fun! And when AI used it on me, it was interesting challenge, too. Without it, non-caster character has no recourse against a caster, aside from killing him (especially if there are no Attack of Opportunity rules for casting). Well, some games have Trip action, which also prevents caster from acting for at least one turn, but Trip is actually stronger than grapple, and should be harder to execute, as prone characters usually suffer far more penalties than grappled characters.
Anyway, as long as Grapple is just a click away, and all calculations are done by computer, and restrictions that are associated with this status effect are clearly reported to player, I think it's actually fun and underused mechanics in CRPGs. And I DO have supporting evidence, in form at least one good game that implements it.
Of course, grapple isn't an (easy) option for more high-budget games, because it requires pair animations, and this stuff is super-costly pain in the ass. Then again, BG3 now has kissing animations for all races, which is almost the same thing :)
Yeah, in a computer game, I can totally see how grappling can become a cool option. Sorry if I misunderstood what you were trying to say.
Grappling rules are always dumb. There's an evil wizard? You have a sword? STAB HIM!
That's fun!!!!!
(I think readying actions is a necessary evil because the alternative is missing turns, and people HATE that.)
But games arent just about fun mate. Theyre about more than that, just like any movie or book that challenges you to use your wits, creativity and brains. Thats how you grow and evolve right? And dont say ”but I just wanna have fun while playing my games” because it just sounds like you have issues with life and wanna hide in escapism. Which is fine, but not very constructive.
That being said, I do agree that when rules become over complicated it feels like doing your taxes or some other rote beurocratic process. Theres a balance in there and FUN is not the sole savior.
Does this great reddit post change your mind about grappling? ;)
https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/12nt03c/ya_oughta_know_em_dnd_5e_basic_combat_maneuvers/
Stabbing an evil wizard won't prevent him from blasting me with Fireball the next turn. Grappling/pinning him, though? That works. Of course, his minions will probably do their best to break this grapple before wizard's next turn, but let them come! Or maybe I DON'T have a sword. I have a dry-on-spells wizard of my own, who will remain mostly useless for the rest of combat... Unless he can overcome the DC and pin down enemy caster, giving the rest of the party a turn free of fireballs. He will probably fall to minions attack after that, but that one turn might well buy the victory!
And I don't get why you say missing turns is alternative to readying actions? Ready actions is a way to act in enemy's turn, to break, or at least meddle with initiative order, and make a turn-based game a bit less unrealistic (note that I LOVE TB games for this unrealism, and hate real-time, but ready actions/overwatch is a good mechanic, imo). It works especially well against flying melee attackers, as Solasta demonstrates, where you can't reach them with your melee weapons at all, unless you can wait for their attack, and strike them when they're close. It also works for counter-spelling, though it also can be implemented MTG-style, by asking the player if he wants to counter a spell whenever one is cast... To everyone's great annoyance (to be fair, Counterspell works exactly this way in Solasta, and yes, it is somewhat annoying).
A good example why acting in enemy's turn is important is Wasteland 2, which lacked Overwatch. It made melee characters overpowered, because they could reach ranged characters in cover during their turn completely unmolested, and proceed to demolish them with their superior close-combat damage, supplemented with stun, bleeding and other abilities. Trying such tactics in, say, X-Com would be far more risky (though not impossible, and certainly rewarding when it works, but X-Com games use wholly different balance than story RPGs).
"And I don't get why you say missing turns is alternative to readying actions?"
You ready an action because you don't want to do something now but you know you'll want to do it soon. (Best example: Opportunity fire, shooting when your opponent comes into view.)
If you can't ready an action, you either have to do something sub-optimal now or skip your turn. Neither is satisfying.
Ah, I see. Yes, these alternatives are unsatisfying. Though I guess the need for ready actions highly depends on the kind of balance the game has: a game where HPs are precious, and a single missed attack can get your character killed (X-Com) simply must have ready action, to prevent offensive playstyle from dominating, but in games where characters have large amount of health (e.g. Caves of Lore, which I'm playing right now, or your own games), it's not so important. BG3 and D&D in general is a borderline case: in early levels, your characters can easily die from a single attack, and the ability to do something in enemy's turn seems very important, but higher levels are much more resilient, both to physical attacks and to various magic, and so have a bit less need to be able to respond to enemy actions... Well, aside from stuff like counter-spelling Power Word: Kill and the likes!
Speaking of difficulty, I wonder what you thought (or still think!) of the Sword Coast Strategy mod in Baldur’s Gate 1 & 2. I recently had a go at the enhanced versions with SCS and Jeez! With Call for Help, sometimes the entire map came at me (bandit camp 😱) with mages pre-buffed and some magic users liberally casting dispels. All good on paper but in practice, times and again, it frustrates me in a way that none of your games ever did! I can’t put my finger on the exact reason but beating your bosses, however difficult, never feels protracted.
I haven't played BG1 or BG2 since they were new. I really need to play them again.