After watching @Dee's video, I'm really impressed. I had no idea that the issues and schools of thought about game balance were evolving into a full-blown academic discipline. I would imagine that the students in game design degree programs have to study and take tests on the kinds of development theories presented in the video series.
So, "perfect imbalance", huh? That's a lot of food for thought.
One thing I notice is that the video applies the principle of perfect imbalance only or mostly to multiplayer games, so one could ask whether the principle applies equally well, partially, or not at all to single player games.
That might make a good essay question on a "Principles of Game Design" exam.
My first thought on the subject is that, in a well-designed single player game, the principle of perfect imbalance could be applied to the player vs. the computer, that is, the player vs. the game environment, the AI, or both. There should be several ways to beat every encounter, where the fun and replayability comes in part from the player's being continually rewarded for experimenting with new combinations of character building and strategy, getting a feeling of accomplishment from having created a new way to overcome the game scenarios.
By contrast, in a game that is *not* perfectly imbalanced, but falls onto either end of the spectrum from "broken" to actual perfect balance (like chess or checkers), the player will either read or develop one or two strategies that will solve every scenario possible in the game. All experimentation leads back to those same, established, base strategies, because any creativity is punished with critical failure.
Thus, the poorly designed and balanced game becomes fatally repetitive, a chore, and/or a meaningless "clickfest", leading to player boredom and dissatisfaction. A game development company that produces many poor games along these lines will gradually create a market reputation as being unable to produce any game with the correctly balanced properties, and thus will begin to lose market share, following the economic chain from there to eventual bankruptcy.
As we saw with the World of Warcraft expansion pack Cataclysm and Mists of Pandaria, balancing a game isn't always the correct way to do things. Certain game aspects shouldn't be balanced.
The video in @Dee posted is also specifically about PvP balance/design, rather than the kind of "cooperative multiplayer" you'd see in standard RPGs. Then again due to the respondability of the GM standard pnp might not be as relevant to the discussion, I guess.
In a multiplayer game, balance means making sure that two character types can compete with each other in a 1 vs 1 scenario--where even if one type is statistically stronger than the other, if the weaker type is being played by a player with greater skill, they can potentially win the encounter.
In a single-player game, balance means making sure that every character type offers an enjoyable gameplay experience. In other words, the "other player" is the game itself, rather than other character types. So if you add a class or a kit or a spell to the game, you want to make sure that that element is fun to use. If an ability or a class is too powerful, even a new player will get bored quickly because they're too powerful for the game's encounters (and not in an interesting way--which is an important distinction). If a class is too weak, even experienced players will be frustrated by the class's inability to complete the game.
That being said, the "don't like it, don't use it" philosophy does apply in a single player game. Advanced players will choose weaker classes in order to get a more challenging experience, and less skilled players (or players who don't want to think as deeply about the game's more challenging encounters) will choose stronger classes so that they can experience the beauty of the world and its story without getting stuck.
If there's a class that's SO powerful that anyone using it, new or experienced, gets bored quickly, then that's a balance problem. If every class is being enjoyed by some subset of players, and if that's being used as a kind of secondary difficulty meter, then rather than the balance of the game being ruined, it's actually being enhanced.
I won't make claims about which is the case here--that's up to the players at large--but it is something to think about.
Follow-up for my previous post--Extra Credits actually has another video about skill-based balance, which is actually more relevant than the "Perfect Imbalance" video I posted earlier.
If there's a class that's SO powerful that anyone using it, new or experienced, gets bored quickly, then that's a balance problem.
It may not be an issue with the class though, but with the content. Inquisitors are considered very powerful in BG2, but are fairly weak in IWD, simply because of the types of enemies encountered.
In most CRPGs a combat focused character is generally preferred, but in Planescape: Torment a Diplomat will fair best.
In a PnP game, if a player comes up with a superhuman character, the DM will fill the dungeon with kryptonite.
@Fardragon That's absolutely true. But given that a particular game's content never changes, you could make the argument that it's the job of the class to be balanced against it (since comparatively it's much easier to tweak a class than to tweak an entire game).
Consider an extreme example: what if they dual-wielding didn't have any thac0 penalties, but just gave you a free attack per round? And investing points in it gave you exta bonuses on top of that, like even more APR or AC bonuses to represent parrying?
DW would be so obscenely powerful in relation to the other styles, that it would basically be the "correct" way to play the game. The other styles would be so marginalized that they would be useless. This would be imbalanced, not because there needs to be done kind of "fairness" among the styles, but because the devs would have invested time and energy, and advertised to players, features that are useless. The game would be precisely as fun as if the devs had not bothered to make those features, and would be less fun than if they had implemented those features in a better, and more balanced, way.
@subtledoctor I don't entirely agree or disagree with what you said, but I would like to point out that you are approaching the debate from a powergaming game mechanics perspective, which in the case of (mostly single-player) RPGs like BG, is only part of the value of the game and source of enjoyment.
I'll use my "OP sorcerer" example again. The sorcerer as it stands is already considered one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, character classes in BG. Yet I would argue that if the sorcerer could learn spells from scrolls as well, which makes them no-brainer stronger than mages, it would not necessarily be a bad thing. It depends on the type of player you are.
For a powergamer, or just somebody who derives most of their enjoyment from beating challenging content by working out different strategies, then yes it could be considered a bad thing, because they will never be motivated to play with a mage over a sorcerer, because the latter has no downsides and is mathematically and objectively "better".
However, many people who play games like BG do it because they also enjoy creating characters and experiencing stories in a compelling and immersive fantasy world. My arguement is that "imbalance" over engineered mechanical balance (which can feel very artificial) could help to make that fantasy world more organic, more realistic and more interesting.
I am not saying that character classes and skills should be imbalanced for the sake of it, but if it makes sense that character A is objectively stronger than character B, then I see no problem for the game mechanics to reflect that, and in fact it bugs me when they don't.
Hence my position on single player RPG balance can be summed up by quoting from Dee from his above comment...
If there's a class that's SO powerful that anyone using it, new or experienced, gets bored quickly, then that's a balance problem. If every class is being enjoyed by some subset of players, and if that's being used as a kind of secondary difficulty meter, then rather than the balance of the game being ruined, it's actually being enhanced.
A parallel example from the world of strategy games... One thing I have always loved about the Total War games was that the world was unfair and the factions in the campaign were unbalanced. In addition to choosing a game difficulty level, your choice of faction (like choosing characters in an RPG) becomes a player-driven secondary difficulty option.
In the latest Total War: Atilla, starting as the Western Roman Empire or the Sassanid Empire will provide very different levels of challenge even if the two campaigns were set on the same game difficulty. Yet that does not make it a no-brainer to play Sassanids all the time just because "they are objectively stronger".
I wanted to agree with @Heindrich more than once for that!
I WANT to see characters and abilities that are objectively stronger or weaker relative to others. It is that organic imbalance that makes things interesting. Its what makes overcoming a given challenge with an objectively weaker character that makes play fascinating. Being able to play an objectively stronger character is what defines the weaker character to begin with. And finding all the variables and tricks to succeed with a weaker character makes you a better player (at least mechanically, it may have no bearing on your role playing). I would even be okay with saying certain party combinations may not even be able to complete the game. The game concept says clearly enough that balanced party play is desirable. So prove the point, design an adventure that simply cannot be completed without several different class abilities in the party. I really dislike the idea that "its all good". It should be possible to have a bad character and/or a bad party. And really I think it is. It is difficult, if not impossible to win with a party of all one class without resorting to cheese. And it could be a very high challenge to with an all minimum roll party too. I think that's awesome and how it should be.
I wanted to agree with @Heindrich more than once for that!
I WANT to see characters and abilities that are objectively stronger or weaker relative to others. It is that organic imbalance that makes things interesting. Its what makes overcoming a given challenge with an objectively weaker character that makes play fascinating. Being able to play an objectively stronger character is what defines the weaker character to begin with. And finding all the variables and tricks to succeed with a weaker character makes you a better player (at least mechanically, it may have no bearing on your role playing). I would even be okay with saying certain party combinations may not even be able to complete the game. The game concept says clearly enough that balanced party play is desirable. So prove the point, design an adventure that simply cannot be completed without several different class abilities in the party. I really dislike the idea that "its all good". It should be possible to have a bad character and/or a bad party. And really I think it is. It is difficult, if not impossible to win with a party of all one class without resorting to cheese. And it could be a very high challenge to with an all minimum roll party too. I think that's awesome and how it should be.
I fully agree and sometimes it's more fun to play the underdog than the powerful option.
If a sorcerer could learn as many spells as a mage, that could certainly be fun to play for someone who wants to bypass one of the basic game rules. (That's fun sometimes). But it would not just make mages inferior to sorcerers - I'll repeat myself, this is not a point about "fairness" - rather, it would make mages become *less* than sorcerers. Their entire set of abilities would be 100% a *subset* of the sorcerer's abilities. In such a case, what is the reason for the mage's existence? Why not just eliminate them and focus dev resources on sorcerers, or on something else?
Because maybe I want to roleplay an academic book-learning mage for whom magic has taken many years of learning, and he is jealous of the young sorcerer for whom it all just comes naturally and is already more powerful than he will ever be?
Anyway let's not kid ourselves, BG is not a role-playing game; it uses DnD rules but it's nothing like a normal DnD game. Rather, it's a tactical combat simulator, akin to a RTS game.
I strongly disagree. As a single player game, the saga has a compelling plot, interesting and sympathetic companions and enemies who can inspire real anger and fear. As a multiplayer game, I have been playing a weekly game with @ChildofBhaal599 and other forum friends for well over a year. It has taken so long because we are enjoying playing it like a D&D game, roleplaying decisions, banter in a tavern, internal conflicts etc... I call that a roleplaying game.
Barbarians are better vs Vampires, Berserkers are much better vs Demiliches. As for why the magic immunities, its mostly supposed to be willpower/sheer inaccesibility of the mind. That said, you might wish to note just which God was patron of berserks, thst would be Odin, also a god of magic. Berserkers were very much associated with magic, especially durability, superstrength and shapedhifting. So, thematiclly it makes sense to me, but you might disagree.
My views on RPG balance is that overall balance is way more important than nitty gritty 'are all 6th lvl characters identical in personal power/capability' side. Gameplay benefits a TON if strategies can be time based, ie a strat could be slow (and vulnerable early) before becoming better later. Possibly the same build could start to slow down later, and thus not finish the strongest.
PnP builds end up like this often. In 3rd ed, if you only take feats for longterm payout, you will have a much harder time than the Fighter pursuing Weapon Specialization. You could totally end up better, but you'd need to earn it.
If a build feels pretty useless (halfing Wizard Slayer in IWD anyone?), its not the end of the world, but expect angry rants if the game is succesful.
I am sorry, but roleplaying shouldn't be a design decision when classes are made. You can roleplay with any class and concept. In other words: "Here's a crappy class but hey, roleplay."
Otherwise, in the Player's Handbook you would have the Commoner class which let's you roleplay the weakest person and class possible. And then you would have the God class which knows all spells and is immortal.
If someone included those classes, it would make a HORRIBLE design decision.
If Sorcerer was basically Mage+, then the Mage would be useless and a waste of space. Making useless classes/spells/races for the sake of roleplay, is bad design.
And that's where mods come in. Making a Commoner run or God run with cheats could be fun. But it should never be included in the default game.
Like I said, there shouldn't be flat-out better choices. There should be different choices. You pick a Thief because you like the skills and sneaking around. You pick a Fighter because you like the specialization and combat focus. You pick a Paladin because you like the extra bonuses even if you're restricted in some things. You shouldn't pick a class because it's better than the other at everything, by design.
As it has been said before, making a crap or inferior choice is a waste of time, resources, development time and choosing it for the first time disappoints you because you picked up something that doesn't work. There are all bad design decisions.
And balance means that this or that option is useful for it's role. And it rewards you for picking it. Not that every option does the same thing but only the way they do it changes.
How would you feel if you picked a Cleric but there were no undead in the game and everyone could heal and buff themselves? Pretty useless. How about picking a Mage and every single enemy was immune to magic? Useless once more. How about a Thief, but there are no locks or traps in the game and they can detect your stealth? Same.
That's where balancing a game comes in. Making each option fun and valid.
@Archaos while I agree viability of options is pretty important, uniqueness of strategy (aka true replability) is something that will almost always have stronger and weaker options, moreso if some are harder to use effectively. Its a big trope in brawler games, how some characters are easier to use with little experience, while others are simply unplayable until you actually get good. Sometimes you end up with a cool, interesting and fun option that is simply not practical... Dhalsim in SF2 was the most unique imo, but combined hard to master with having few true top tier moves. However, everyone loved him being an option, as he added so much, even if some people never could beat Bison on high enough difficulty to view his cutscene! *grumble*
Imho, most games that take the route you seem to be suggesting tend to end up like KOTOR, especially the first one, where playthroughs felt identical, even if played very differently. I even tried forcing Revan to get all the way to 9th lvl as a Scoundrel, before dualing to a Guardian, and I took high dex/intelligence... This ended up being as 'weird' as I could make things, short of my self-nerfing minimal force use Jedi with a Blaster Rifle. That actually made the last boss hard lol. But still, a game should, if it wants to be a DnD type RPG aim to make roleplaying significant mechanically and storywise. In KOTOR, you really do almost everything the same way every time, which means once you have one or two really complete runs, subsequent runs become tedious, if not odious. Now, I loved KOTOR, so don't get me wrong, it is just that the game mechanics were not up to the story.
If you play a thief in BG, you will play VERY differently than a ranger, cleric or sorcerer, even all 3 can become invisible at low levels. They each offer unique tactics to employ, and almost force you to roleplay them differently.
I agree a kit like Wizard Slayer is a bit too weak, but I know people that picked it purely for RP purposes. My stance I suppose is that a much weaker option is okay, provided itmis very unique or interesting. I also know that some folks Will deliberately choose a harder option, either for the challenge or for RP reasons. It is also nice to point out a really subpar option, like how Katanas in BG2 straight up say you won't find many. Sure enough, you could easily play through SoA and never find Celestial Fury, so you'd be stuck with that weird Dueling Steel katana, and be at a substantial disadvantage. Clubs didnt even HAVE an enchanted option in BG1 originally, though people did whine a bit about that! So, really hard undo-overable (...that is an ugly, ugly word) should have an asterix warning they'll make life harder.
I WANT to see characters and abilities that are objectively stronger or weaker relative to others. It is that organic imbalance that makes things interesting. Its what makes overcoming a given challenge with an objectively weaker character that makes play fascinating. ... I would even be okay with saying certain party combinations may not even be able to complete the game.
Sorry, just noticed this after I posted. Here's my riposte: how does this apply to something like Berserker Rage? A berserker is a physical dynamo, as powerful in melee as they come. But the devs piled on all sorts of weird magical effects like resistance to level drain, and resistance to Maze and Imprison. It's artificial and senseless (you can resist teleportation magic? except not during cut-scenes, and not the much weaker Teleport Field spell...) These thing we're pretty clearly bolted onto the game for reasons of artificial balance, to allow Berserkers to fight vampires and liches.
But I think, and by the above statements atcDave should think, that berserkers ought to suck against vampires and liches. There are other character types who should be better. But the same people who say "stop worrying about balance, some things should be unbalanced" tend to defend the artificial, clearly balance-driven, additions to berserker rage. So, methinks not everyone is as principled as they claim to be...
@subtledoctor I completely agree that abilities should make sense. I have no interest in defending the Berzerker, for me it's in the "don't like, don't use" category. I don't want to make too big a thing of it though. I have no problem with saying I don't have to like or use every class, kit or spell. If it works for other players, then that's great. In my own PnP setting Berzerker works a little differently. If I were redesigning IWD I would also tweak this kit some; its powers and abilities should absolutely be consistent and rational for the setting. Balance does matter too, but only as part of the equation, not as a beginning or end.
I actually own a hardcopy of that book, and have read through it numerous times. Now, feel free to point out where exactly I said 'BG2 implemented berserkers identically to PnP!', as I can find nothing even remotely of that nature. Feel free to reread my post as necessary. You seemed confused why berserkers get magic immunities RP-wise, so I pointed out the historical context. You did throw around the word 'senseless', after all.
The actual reason berserkers were not implemented precisely as per PnP is more accurately summarized by simply noting the PnP version is not compatible with BG2 and the infinity engine. Also, the kit in PnP is pretty impractical (Required a long 'shield gnawing' downtime). Considering several of those spells don't exist in BG, they clearly felt the need to offer something instead. Either way, Fighters are a longass way from the 'powergamers favourite', arcane classes win that easily. Is Berserker the 'powergamer' choice for a warrior? Many would favour Inquisitors, and arguably Archer and Stalker have significant advantages. Best fighter kit then? Yeah, probably, but its not like a Kensai or Wizard Slayer can't solo ToB. Berserkers are more easy to manage than brutally powerful. They are conspicuously better vs unusually annoying enemies, but their damage output is barely better than a kitless fighter. Berserkers are exactly as cheesy as the Shield of Balduran, and exist to make potentially frustrating encounters far more manageable.
You don't have to like berserkers, but they are a good addition, both thematicly and mechanically. I agree with @atcDave you shouldn't feel obligated to use berserkers if they bother you.
@Fardragon That's absolutely true. But given that a particular game's content never changes, you could make the argument that it's the job of the class to be balanced against it (since comparatively it's much easier to tweak a class than to tweak an entire game).
These days, game content changes regularly with DLC and mods.
And the argument "balanced against game content" breaks down completly when you import a class from one game to another.
KOTOR, and anything based on Star Wars, is going to have problems with jedi running around. trying to balance the unbalancable is what sucked the life out of TOR.
It would be the same trying to incorporate muggle characters into a Harry Potter RPG.
OK everyone! Time to settle down and take a break from the argument to READ THE SITE RULES! I see flaming here and that is not good. Remember that it is ok to disagree and debate but you need to keep it clean and civil!
A video game is a game and games are not reality simulators. Games are about solving problems within a set of artificial rules. Also, I don't like the idea of having intentionally weaker classes for the sake of experienced players being able to take on additional challenge. What about new players who don't know they're being punished for something they have no way of knowing to begin with?
IE games had a lot of glaring imbalances (especially the ones developed by Bioware, the IWD series less so), and we should recognize that as a flaw rather than a strength. Every class had one set of ideal attributes to min-max and any deviation from that could make your build useless. Players trying to play a non-warrior class in BG1 had a much more difficult time at the beginning of the game. Some kits obsoleted other classes or other kits (i.e. why play a non-kit Paladin in BG2). This is all bad design, requiring foreknowledge of the game and punishing players for experimenting and not reading strategy guides before playing.
On that note, Pillars of Eternity has Josh Sawyer doing the combat and character system with the philosophy that most build concepts should be equally viable ones. I'm eager to see how it will succeed and whether it will change perceptions around the IE games system.
Comments
Sort of.
So, "perfect imbalance", huh? That's a lot of food for thought.
One thing I notice is that the video applies the principle of perfect imbalance only or mostly to multiplayer games, so one could ask whether the principle applies equally well, partially, or not at all to single player games.
That might make a good essay question on a "Principles of Game Design" exam.
My first thought on the subject is that, in a well-designed single player game, the principle of perfect imbalance could be applied to the player vs. the computer, that is, the player vs. the game environment, the AI, or both. There should be several ways to beat every encounter, where the fun and replayability comes in part from the player's being continually rewarded for experimenting with new combinations of character building and strategy, getting a feeling of accomplishment from having created a new way to overcome the game scenarios.
By contrast, in a game that is *not* perfectly imbalanced, but falls onto either end of the spectrum from "broken" to actual perfect balance (like chess or checkers), the player will either read or develop one or two strategies that will solve every scenario possible in the game. All experimentation leads back to those same, established, base strategies, because any creativity is punished with critical failure.
Thus, the poorly designed and balanced game becomes fatally repetitive, a chore, and/or a meaningless "clickfest", leading to player boredom and dissatisfaction. A game development company that produces many poor games along these lines will gradually create a market reputation as being unable to produce any game with the correctly balanced properties, and thus will begin to lose market share, following the economic chain from there to eventual bankruptcy.
In a single-player game, balance means making sure that every character type offers an enjoyable gameplay experience. In other words, the "other player" is the game itself, rather than other character types. So if you add a class or a kit or a spell to the game, you want to make sure that that element is fun to use. If an ability or a class is too powerful, even a new player will get bored quickly because they're too powerful for the game's encounters (and not in an interesting way--which is an important distinction). If a class is too weak, even experienced players will be frustrated by the class's inability to complete the game.
That being said, the "don't like it, don't use it" philosophy does apply in a single player game. Advanced players will choose weaker classes in order to get a more challenging experience, and less skilled players (or players who don't want to think as deeply about the game's more challenging encounters) will choose stronger classes so that they can experience the beauty of the world and its story without getting stuck.
If there's a class that's SO powerful that anyone using it, new or experienced, gets bored quickly, then that's a balance problem. If every class is being enjoyed by some subset of players, and if that's being used as a kind of secondary difficulty meter, then rather than the balance of the game being ruined, it's actually being enhanced.
I won't make claims about which is the case here--that's up to the players at large--but it is something to think about.
In most CRPGs a combat focused character is generally preferred, but in Planescape: Torment a Diplomat will fair best.
In a PnP game, if a player comes up with a superhuman character, the DM will fill the dungeon with kryptonite.
I'll use my "OP sorcerer" example again. The sorcerer as it stands is already considered one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, character classes in BG. Yet I would argue that if the sorcerer could learn spells from scrolls as well, which makes them no-brainer stronger than mages, it would not necessarily be a bad thing. It depends on the type of player you are.
For a powergamer, or just somebody who derives most of their enjoyment from beating challenging content by working out different strategies, then yes it could be considered a bad thing, because they will never be motivated to play with a mage over a sorcerer, because the latter has no downsides and is mathematically and objectively "better".
However, many people who play games like BG do it because they also enjoy creating characters and experiencing stories in a compelling and immersive fantasy world. My arguement is that "imbalance" over engineered mechanical balance (which can feel very artificial) could help to make that fantasy world more organic, more realistic and more interesting.
I am not saying that character classes and skills should be imbalanced for the sake of it, but if it makes sense that character A is objectively stronger than character B, then I see no problem for the game mechanics to reflect that, and in fact it bugs me when they don't.
Hence my position on single player RPG balance can be summed up by quoting from Dee from his above comment...
If there's a class that's SO powerful that anyone using it, new or experienced, gets bored quickly, then that's a balance problem. If every class is being enjoyed by some subset of players, and if that's being used as a kind of secondary difficulty meter, then rather than the balance of the game being ruined, it's actually being enhanced.
A parallel example from the world of strategy games... One thing I have always loved about the Total War games was that the world was unfair and the factions in the campaign were unbalanced. In addition to choosing a game difficulty level, your choice of faction (like choosing characters in an RPG) becomes a player-driven secondary difficulty option.
In the latest Total War: Atilla, starting as the Western Roman Empire or the Sassanid Empire will provide very different levels of challenge even if the two campaigns were set on the same game difficulty. Yet that does not make it a no-brainer to play Sassanids all the time just because "they are objectively stronger".
I WANT to see characters and abilities that are objectively stronger or weaker relative to others. It is that organic imbalance that makes things interesting. Its what makes overcoming a given challenge with an objectively weaker character that makes play fascinating. Being able to play an objectively stronger character is what defines the weaker character to begin with. And finding all the variables and tricks to succeed with a weaker character makes you a better player (at least mechanically, it may have no bearing on your role playing).
I would even be okay with saying certain party combinations may not even be able to complete the game. The game concept says clearly enough that balanced party play is desirable. So prove the point, design an adventure that simply cannot be completed without several different class abilities in the party.
I really dislike the idea that "its all good". It should be possible to have a bad character and/or a bad party.
And really I think it is. It is difficult, if not impossible to win with a party of all one class without resorting to cheese. And it could be a very high challenge to with an all minimum roll party too. I think that's awesome and how it should be.
My views on RPG balance is that overall balance is way more important than nitty gritty 'are all 6th lvl characters identical in personal power/capability' side. Gameplay benefits a TON if strategies can be time based, ie a strat could be slow (and vulnerable early) before becoming better later. Possibly the same build could start to slow down later, and thus not finish the strongest.
PnP builds end up like this often. In 3rd ed, if you only take feats for longterm payout, you will have a much harder time than the Fighter pursuing Weapon Specialization. You could totally end up better, but you'd need to earn it.
If a build feels pretty useless (halfing Wizard Slayer in IWD anyone?), its not the end of the world, but expect angry rants if the game is succesful.
You can roleplay with any class and concept.
In other words: "Here's a crappy class but hey, roleplay."
Otherwise, in the Player's Handbook you would have the Commoner class which let's you roleplay the weakest person and class possible.
And then you would have the God class which knows all spells and is immortal.
If someone included those classes, it would make a HORRIBLE design decision.
If Sorcerer was basically Mage+, then the Mage would be useless and a waste of space.
Making useless classes/spells/races for the sake of roleplay, is bad design.
And that's where mods come in. Making a Commoner run or God run with cheats could be fun. But it should never be included in the default game.
Like I said, there shouldn't be flat-out better choices. There should be different choices.
You pick a Thief because you like the skills and sneaking around.
You pick a Fighter because you like the specialization and combat focus.
You pick a Paladin because you like the extra bonuses even if you're restricted in some things.
You shouldn't pick a class because it's better than the other at everything, by design.
As it has been said before, making a crap or inferior choice is a waste of time, resources, development time and choosing it for the first time disappoints you because you picked up something that doesn't work.
There are all bad design decisions.
And balance means that this or that option is useful for it's role. And it rewards you for picking it.
Not that every option does the same thing but only the way they do it changes.
How would you feel if you picked a Cleric but there were no undead in the game and everyone could heal and buff themselves? Pretty useless.
How about picking a Mage and every single enemy was immune to magic? Useless once more.
How about a Thief, but there are no locks or traps in the game and they can detect your stealth? Same.
That's where balancing a game comes in. Making each option fun and valid.
Imho, most games that take the route you seem to be suggesting tend to end up like KOTOR, especially the first one, where playthroughs felt identical, even if played very differently. I even tried forcing Revan to get all the way to 9th lvl as a Scoundrel, before dualing to a Guardian, and I took high dex/intelligence... This ended up being as 'weird' as I could make things, short of my self-nerfing minimal force use Jedi with a Blaster Rifle.
If you play a thief in BG, you will play VERY differently than a ranger, cleric or sorcerer, even all 3 can become invisible at low levels. They each offer unique tactics to employ, and almost force you to roleplay them differently.
I agree a kit like Wizard Slayer is a bit too weak, but I know people that picked it purely for RP purposes. My stance I suppose is that a much weaker option is okay, provided itmis very unique or interesting. I also know that some folks Will deliberately choose a harder option, either for the challenge or for RP reasons. It is also nice to point out a really subpar option, like how Katanas in BG2 straight up say you won't find many. Sure enough, you could easily play through SoA and never find Celestial Fury, so you'd be stuck with that weird Dueling Steel katana, and be at a substantial disadvantage. Clubs didnt even HAVE an enchanted option in BG1 originally, though people did whine a bit about that! So, really hard undo-overable (...that is an ugly, ugly word) should have an asterix warning they'll make life harder.
The actual reason berserkers were not implemented precisely as per PnP is more accurately summarized by simply noting the PnP version is not compatible with BG2 and the infinity engine. Also, the kit in PnP is pretty impractical (Required a long 'shield gnawing' downtime). Considering several of those spells don't exist in BG, they clearly felt the need to offer something instead. Either way, Fighters are a longass way from the 'powergamers favourite', arcane classes win that easily. Is Berserker the 'powergamer' choice for a warrior? Many would favour Inquisitors, and arguably Archer and Stalker have significant advantages. Best fighter kit then? Yeah, probably, but its not like a Kensai or Wizard Slayer can't solo ToB. Berserkers are more easy to manage than brutally powerful. They are conspicuously better vs unusually annoying enemies, but their damage output is barely better than a kitless fighter. Berserkers are exactly as cheesy as the Shield of Balduran, and exist to make potentially frustrating encounters far more manageable.
You don't have to like berserkers, but they are a good addition, both thematicly and mechanically. I agree with @atcDave you shouldn't feel obligated to use berserkers if they bother you.
And the argument "balanced against game content" breaks down completly when you import a class from one game to another.
It would be the same trying to incorporate muggle characters into a Harry Potter RPG.
IE games had a lot of glaring imbalances (especially the ones developed by Bioware, the IWD series less so), and we should recognize that as a flaw rather than a strength. Every class had one set of ideal attributes to min-max and any deviation from that could make your build useless. Players trying to play a non-warrior class in BG1 had a much more difficult time at the beginning of the game. Some kits obsoleted other classes or other kits (i.e. why play a non-kit Paladin in BG2). This is all bad design, requiring foreknowledge of the game and punishing players for experimenting and not reading strategy guides before playing.
On that note, Pillars of Eternity has Josh Sawyer doing the combat and character system with the philosophy that most build concepts should be equally viable ones. I'm eager to see how it will succeed and whether it will change perceptions around the IE games system.