Do RPGs need to be "balanced"??
jjstraka34
Member Posts: 9,850
This is a topic I've been thinking of recently in the wake of Pillars of Eternity being released. Inevitably, there were complaints that certain classes were performing too well, that others couldn't hold their own. And I can't for the life of me, at least in regards to single-player CRPGs, understand where this notion of balance and even-footing came from.
Let's for instance take a look at Baldur's Gate. I don't think there is anyone who would argue that a Wizard Slayer or Beast Master is vastly inferior to a Kensai/Mage or a Blackguard. But so what?? Are we to assume that every adventurer in these worlds were created completely equal?? Many would say that there is no reason to play the former class because it simply can't hold it's own from a power standpoint. My argument would be that alot of what makes classes and kits so fun is their DISADVANTAGES as much as their perks.
To go even further, think about a spell like Detect Evil (or something similar from any number of games). This spell usually serves next to zero importance outside of a obligatory investigation quest in the first act the first time you play the game. No one who is attempting to win a battle is going to have it memorized. But it is in the game....because the best RPGs are doing their absolute best to present you with complete freedom over your character in the world that has been presented. Most people consider NPCs like Garrick and Cernd "useless" which is only true if you are a power gamer with no interest in story or immersion whatsoever. Garrick and Cernd obviously don't compete with Edwin or Dorn, but you would think they were summoned skeletons the way they are lambasted.
In the end, I believe the answer is that what makes RPGs good in the first place is that they AREN'T balanced. The fact that someone can decide to be an arcane hating Wizard Slayer and attempt a no-reload, SCS run with said character is a testament to a strength, not a flaw.
Let's for instance take a look at Baldur's Gate. I don't think there is anyone who would argue that a Wizard Slayer or Beast Master is vastly inferior to a Kensai/Mage or a Blackguard. But so what?? Are we to assume that every adventurer in these worlds were created completely equal?? Many would say that there is no reason to play the former class because it simply can't hold it's own from a power standpoint. My argument would be that alot of what makes classes and kits so fun is their DISADVANTAGES as much as their perks.
To go even further, think about a spell like Detect Evil (or something similar from any number of games). This spell usually serves next to zero importance outside of a obligatory investigation quest in the first act the first time you play the game. No one who is attempting to win a battle is going to have it memorized. But it is in the game....because the best RPGs are doing their absolute best to present you with complete freedom over your character in the world that has been presented. Most people consider NPCs like Garrick and Cernd "useless" which is only true if you are a power gamer with no interest in story or immersion whatsoever. Garrick and Cernd obviously don't compete with Edwin or Dorn, but you would think they were summoned skeletons the way they are lambasted.
In the end, I believe the answer is that what makes RPGs good in the first place is that they AREN'T balanced. The fact that someone can decide to be an arcane hating Wizard Slayer and attempt a no-reload, SCS run with said character is a testament to a strength, not a flaw.
Post edited by jjstraka34 on
7
Comments
A slightly more moderate meaning would be "equal opportunities to succeed," which doesn't entail perfect equality. Here belongs those games where different access to weapons, armor, and spells might require different strategies, but each of those strategies, although different, give a similar chance to complete the game on any difficulty. This can be interesting, especially if it's a competitive multiplayer game.
Finally, there's a notion of balanced where cheesing is minimized across all classes, but it is easier to finish the game with some as opposed to others. The goal here is to simply ensure that every class *can* finish, but it isn't interested in making sure that happens in an evenly distributed manner. I think BG would fall into this category. Sure, not every kit is identical in terms of strengths and weaknesses, but every kit has a chance to finish the game on any difficulty setting.
I'm okay with the 2nd and 3rd notions. I hate the 1st, almost equally as much as I hate an unbalanced game that has godlike classes and / or classes that are plainly mind-numbingly handicapped. There were some pretty bad kits in FF series, like the dancer in FFV whose only reasons for selecting was for completionist reasons and / or being able to equip ribbons.
For example:
Sympathizing: "Oh, my poor wizard slayer can't wear anything magical. I suppose they should give him some commom item that will give him bonuses that aren't necessarily magical! Yes, that way we can balance my character "
Empathizing: "It's a bit tough not being able to wear magical armor, but hey , my character slays magic users! If someday magic gets out of control (more than it already is) he will be the only warrior who will survive the onslaught! But before that day comes, he must endure the difficulties of not being tempted by the greed for magical rings , armor or amulets"
As you can see, Sympathizing means that you are ignoring what a character brings to himself because of his flaws, class or even his personality. Empathizing means the opposite: no matter how much you love that character, he has to learn from his choices , and sometimes the means to it are a bit painful.
RPG's should follow the second rule - mages can control the universe, but they still have vulnerabilities and need fighters around to protect them because balance doesn't mean fair - it means dealing with the consequences of your choices.
So I would pretty firmly say maybe. I come from a background of wargaming, and I'm actually more interested in representing what you mean to represent than I am in "balance" per se.
So I would expect a game representing an encounter between a squadron of Fletcher Class Destroyers and a small group of invasion barges to be a one sided massacre. Any other "balance" has gotten it all wrong. And yes, I've seen some things bill themselves as serious wargames that still try to scale their challenges; this can usually be called "a mistake".
Where that comes into play in a fantasy setting is I think in a living breathing world, not every class/weapon/spell is going to have equal value.
In my own setting I have a pretty well developed mythos that includes things like a clergy devoted to romantic love, a clergy devoted to agriculture and a clergy devoted to combat for the defense of civilization (and about 40 others). Although every one of those priesthoods is equally developed as specialty clerics; no attempt was made to make them all equally good choices for a player character. If a player decides he just really has to play a cleric of the local farm sect they CANNOT expect that character to be as equally useful to an adventuring party as the player cleric who is a militarized protector of the weak.
Balance SHOULD NOT be construed to mean all choices are equally "good".
Some of those options really only exist because of my desire to create a world that is bigger than just the adventure. Well, and because you never know when a cleric from the local love cult might cause some entertaining chaos in a completely asymmetrical sort of way...
Sorry, not trying to derail the topic....
A well-designed RPG accommodates that.
Otherwise, it is only natural that some classes are generally stronger than the others.
Right now, in Baldur's Gate, Shapeshifter is clearly seen as inferior druid than Avenger. Berserker is much superior than Wizard Slayer. Strong classes are okay, but the imbalance potentially shut of number of choices the player has to choice from. Why would they bother with weak class?
Then again, people have different views and gameplay styles. Some likes choosing underpowered characters in their games, for the sake of challenge. Some just aren't thinking of tiers or anything like that at all. And majority of gamers are simply pursuing for what is the best choice in the game.
I would like, for example, Shapeshifter to be more viable kit, since I very much like the idea, but that's something I can put in my "The List of Things I Want Which Won't Be Ever Done By Beamdog, Period".
Having balanced classes and tactics allows for better replayability of the game.
Take the fable series for example. Guns were overpowered that they made fighting with melee weapons pointless.
If a game has NPCs, it is also good to have balanced classes so you are not leaving one behind all the tone because his or her power is inferior to everyone else.
But having certain abilities do more damage than others such as Mages Cone of Cold in Origins gives that uniqueness that doesnt make the game feel like same old same old.
On another hand the lack of balance is directly proportional to the complexity of a game. It's very hard to balance out thousands of tiny little features that often have unexpected synergies when combined with other different features. This is how the Cheese is born. Gamers easily find these exploits, and when they get "fixed", soon new ones are found. There will always be overpowered combinations. Whether you see them as reasons for a smooth joyride or a boring thing to be avoided is up to you.
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/39669/josh-sawyers-thoughts-on-iwd-ee/p1
For instance, NWN2 has a class that has an intelligence-based fighter, but enemies immune to critical hits are immune to that effect. Funny, but the majority of the game is against undead and other crit-immune enemies (literally for no reason). There is no way that a player can know that when they start. That's the sort of thing that bugs me - not so much a balance of class, as much as some thought to what will be encountered.
It's not so important for BG, because you can use (and should use) NPC's to bolster the overall party. I still think the mage hunter (wizard slayer, technically) worthless fighter, along with the beast master, are woefully inadequate to the point of being anti-fun, but that is what it is.
Recommendation would be for the game to tell you that certain classes are a challenge (which happens in newer games).
In several Marvel video games about heroes (and I feel right in mentioning Marvel Ultimate Alliance among others), all of the characters are so balanced that Daredevil could go up against Thor with an equal chance. DC is no better about it making Batman being able to go toe to toe with Superman in a straight up, non tricked out fight. What??? Sups would KILL Batman in the first round, unless Batman had his Kryptonite ring handy.
In playing RPG games, I always find it funny when people talk about one thing or another being OP, particularly within the context of 'X should be removed from the game for being OP'. If you think it is overpowered, don't use it.
Another aspect that I really dislike about the topic is what was described above when 'Equal' is translated into 'The Same'. If you are comparing DPS at a character level, something's gotta be wrong. Or maybe you just want to play Diablo (which isn't wrong, it's just a different game). Characters in the classic D&D setting were never meant to be stand alone and defeat every challenge. It was designed such that each character had strengths and weaknesses and needed a party. That's balance in my book.
Beyond that, I play characters because I like to role play. I don't care if I'm not as 'powerful' as every other character. And I CERTAINLY don't want to be 'The Same' as every other character. Where's the fun in that?
So if someone says balance, I think "Such that everyone has a part to play"? I say yes. this is necessary. When people say "My Thief should be able to fight as well as a fighter"? I say NO.
Having said that, Pillars of Eternity so far is quite underwhelming for me. The story's good so far and the graphics are stunning, but content-wise? A bit meh. Half of the taverns are filled with NPCs created by backers instead of real NPCs you can interact with. Most of the NPCs on the street don't have much to say either. And most of the loot is hidden in areas you can't sneak in, because there's people watching you. I also dislike the spell system for mages. BG's system was easier to understand, and I don't really like the fact that half my mage's inventory is filled with grimoires just so he can learn some new spells. Also, what's up with armour and weapons? Most merchants selling them offer prices which are way too high. My characters are level 5 now and still walking around in the same gear they started with. I like to customise my characters, you know. Also, each time you level up, you get a very wide array of choices in talents and spells, but you only get maybe one point so you can only choose one talent, ability or spell. Maybe I'm just still too low level and thus the true fun is only still about to start? I don't really feel like I'm fleshing out my character all that much, to be honest.
Other things I like are the fact that you gain XP when discovering areas (encourages exploration) and the characters I have in my party so far are really amusing. My favourites thus far are Kana and Edér.
My opinion on the game thus is a bit mixed. Not all too negative, but not as optimistic either. I'll keep playing though.
PS: sorry for going off-topic. I kinda got carried away there.
Go and search it. It relates to this subject.
As for the merchants, the maps in these games are set up so you can't just forget about towns you've cleared earlier. A staple of D&D games especially is that merchants as soon as the first 2 or 3 towns you visit have insanely powerful items for thousands more gold than you are even close to having. The idea is to take note of it and come back later if you want them. High Hedge in Baldur's Gate has incredibly expensive items, and you'll probably visit that area within 1 or 2 hours of starting a game. The same can be said of items available for sale in Kuldahar in Icewind Dale. I'm playing through NWN2 Original Campaign right now and every single merchant has high priced items available that are literally impossible to buy when you first encounter them. It's not a mistake, it's intentional. Think of it as saving up 3 months of allowance for a new video game system when you were younger.
Okay, that might not be entirely accurate; I don't know for sure that "tank" comes directly from WoW, but I do think WoW has a big influence on the RPG genre as a whole, and many of the terms do come from similar games. I know for a fact that DPS is a WoW term, and concepts like "pulling mobs" and "drawing aggro" are very WoW (WoW being an acronym for World of Warcraft and not an exclamation of admiration
Anyway, I digress. The whole idea that the classes have to be balanced likely comes from games where the PCs are likely to fight against each other often, so the developers kind of had to make it so that all classes were equal overall, while some excelled in certain areas. Up close, a heavy fighter type would win the day, but if a hard hitting type could move around a lot, he'd have the advantage, and his mobility could well carry him through. Same if a wizard was able to deploy his spells properly, or a priest made effective use of his defensive spells.
In PnP games, this kind of gameplay is rare. They focus on the players working together to overcome challenges in whatever way they are able, and the only thing that's really required is that everybody is able to contribute effectively to the overall goal. If a character totally sucks in combat but is great at diplomacy, for example, then he'd not have much fun if the game involved all combat and no diplomacy. Occasionally, players fight party members with similar classes, but it's usually as a group battle. It's rare that a player is made to go one-on-one with a character with the same level in a different class (not impossible but rare).
So, no, I don't think all the classes need to be balanced. In fact, I think they should NOT be balanced, because they're not competing against each other. They each have their purpose, and they should excel primarily at that purpose, but they should still have other things they can do. A rogue, for example, should mainly focus on locks, traps, and stealth, but should still not be totally useless in a fight in a game that's mainly about fighting. He should not be as good as the fighter, and in a one-on-one situation the fighter should win every time, but the rogue should still be able to contribute something to the fight.
However, there should be limits to how effectively each class completes a certain task. If a fighter can steamroll over everything with no help from the others, it won't be much fun for the others. If a wizard can blast everything in sight so the fighter doesn't even need to raise his weapon, it won't be much fun for the fighter. So while they shouldn't be balanced against each other in combat, they should be designed so that they can all contribute equally effectively to most situations.
That's my personal opinion.
@Squire - it may surprise you to know that DPS was around before WoW. It was a thing even in Diablo 1. As were terms like Agro, tank and pulling. You are right that they may have become more prevalent with WoW, but they have been around for as long as there have been games. Even way back in the PnP days, things like 'Tank' and "Pulling" were in the mix.
How many people play the Wizard Slayer and how many play a Berserker or Kensai?
How many play the Bounty Hunter and how many play Assassin or Swashbuckler?
How many play the Undead Hunter and how many play the Inquisitor or Cavalier?
How many play Beastmaster and how many play Archer or Stalker?
How many play the Jester and how many the Blade?
Yes, some will play some of the above but compared to the more "popular" classes, the difference is great.
And those classes are popular because they're good.
When you have crappy classes then when someone asks for advice they get "Yeah, that class is not that good, really and is underpowered. I would recommend playing something more fun."
If they find out on their own, then they get disappointed because it doesn't work as they thought or as the flavor or description indicated.
When stuff are close to balanced (perfection is impossible) then whatever you choose to play based on flavor is still fun in mechanics. And by fun I mean not crappy.
Flavor and mechanics are two different things. You can have a really crappy class with lots of flavor and one awesome class with lots of flavor again or vice versa.
Flavor is not an excuse for crappy classes. "It's a crap class but it has flavor." So? It's still a crappy class. And that's an issue that should be fixed.
And if balance was unimportant completely by game designers, you would have Sorcerers that get d12 for HP, can cast in heavy armor and get the THAC0 of a Fighter.
DnD always strived to be somewhat balanced and combat role-based.
so yeah, RPGs need it too.