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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
(“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).
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.