The Gaming Den

Creating options for player character advancement which mitigate or even compensate disadvantages not inherent to the core mechanics is bad design. As soon as you add these kinds of options into the game you have the classic problem of Gygaxian "suck now, be awesome later"-game design.

The reverse is also true, of course, but mostly not as bad because overpowered player characters are generally less of a problem than underpowered ones.

Why does it happen anyway? Are game designers oblivious to the fact that you can't balance the game over time or are they too lazy to actually design better options? I mean it's trivially easy to create options which do nothing but mirror another option's drawbacks, or rather it's two for one (class feature "you suck at X" and feat "you no longer suck at X").

It was deemed to be balanced in the Gygax days, and TTRPG design is depressingly legacy-driven. Especially these days with there not actually being even a single fully backed edition of anything.

However...

zugschef wrote:The reverse is also true, of course, but mostly not as bad because overpowered player characters are generally less of a problem than underpowered ones.

That's up for debate. If the fighter is underperforming and the rest of the party is basically fine, you can throw the fighter a magic sword to compensate. If the wizard is dominating every encounter, it's nerf bats or serious escalation.

Of course, that's also a matter of degree and a matter of how obvious it is. If the wizard is casting the spells that makes the encounter be won by buffing everyone else to the nines, it will take longer for the players to notice and/or resent how ridiculously OP their comrade is.

Sandbagging is happening, but giving the monk an amulet of tiger-form still doesn't change the fact that the character fails at adventuring. You always have the option of not dominating, but you don't always have the option to matter. That's why I think that underpowered characters are worse.

Suck now, awesome later isn't inherently terrible for game design. It is fine for plenty of strategy games. It just sucks for games that rely upon players being somewhat balanced since it guarantees that the majority of the time there will not be balance.

It can also be alleviated by a game where players run multiple characters (everyone gets a wizard and some fightan mans) since player to player balance is largely maintained.

The easiest way to deflect accusations of game imbalance is to show that neither of two options is better than the other in all circumstances. That is, having demonstrated a scenario where A is better than B, you have a reasonable sounding argument that A and B are not unbalanced. And one of the easiest ways to make that be true is to simply shit all over option B at some point in time.

Consider Magic cards: people don't complain that a card is too good because its effects are bigger than other cards, they complain that a card is too good when its effects are bigger than other cards at the same cost. Similarly, consider the CoDzilla meme - lots of people finally realized that the Fighter was not balanced with spellcasters only when I demonstrated that a Cleric could put up comparable damage tallies with a bow.

Sucking now for power later isn't a good balancing tool. It is, however, a strong rhetorical tool for deflecting criticism that the game isn't balanced.

-Username17

Omegonthesane wrote: Of course, that's also a matter of degree and a matter of how obvious it is. If the wizard is casting the spells that makes the encounter be won by buffing everyone else to the nines, it will take longer for the players to notice and/or resent how ridiculously OP their comrade is.

I think you underestimate how deceptive this is at the table. A wizard who used summon monster and buff spells would be beaten to death by the other players after a session or two. A player who buffs the other players will be allowed near limitless power because most people equate buffers/force amplifiers with being a sidekick.

This is actually the core reason the cleric/druid are so powerful in 3.x. In 2e most of the really good cleric buffs either affect the whole party (meaning that warriors get more benefit by result of having a higher base), worked better on warriors (spells like strength that were just more effective on warriors than other classes) or shut off your spell casting (like divine power).

In my experience I would say that about 80% of the people who play D&D could not be convinced to play a character whose main contribution is buffing others even if they were TOLD that the character was extremely overpowered. 50% of the playerbase wouldn't play a buffer character if they were SHOWN how a buffing wizard was overpowered. I would even be willing to bet that 25% of the playerbase would never admit, and could not be convinced that a buffing character was over powered, even with detailed math.

zugschef wrote:Creating options for player character advancement which mitigate or even compensate disadvantages not inherent to the core mechanics is bad design. As soon as you add these kinds of options into the game you have the classic problem of Gygaxian "suck now, be awesome later"-game design.

Your, what is this? A manifesto? Needs work.

It's horribly worded and while I'm pretty sure you are complaining primarily about that old stupid "wizards weak early game, strong late game" thing it really isn't very clear.

I mean I'm fairly certain you are sort of also simultaneously somehow mixing that up with "gain advantages that matter at the cost of disadvantages that don't"... I can't actually tell.

And while I am more (but not entirely) certain you are NOT complaining about say the basic concept of character progression in general your text could in fact almost be read as a rant against, well, the basic concept of character progression in general.

I mean I could just pick whatever I felt like and respond to that, I'd have things to say on just about any one of those topics, but talking about them all at once in such a confused and jumbled way seems like a bad idea.

Though really, in the end I'm just mostly seeing a common subtext between this and your flight/teleportation at low levels stuff and that is you don't like wizards. Like one kicked your dog or something.

So what current game is actually claiming that it uses this for balance? Is it a D&D 5e claim?

Are we talking about "you suck at level 1 but are great at level 10" or "You are good at fighting but bad in legwork and social" spotlights.

We're talking the argument "If Wizard < Fighter at Level 1 but Wizard > Fighter at Levels 2+, Wizard = Fighter."

Orca wrote:So what current game is actually claiming that it uses this for balance? Is it a D&D 5e claim?

It still gets trotted out regularly by Pathfailure enthusiasts to justify the fact that spellcasters are better than you. After all, at first level they only have 6 hit points!

I have honestly no idea what 5th edition D&D partisans would attempt to justify the game with, because that game has no fans.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:Sucking now for power later isn't a good balancing tool. It is, however, a strong rhetorical tool for deflecting criticism that the game isn't balanced.

That sounds reasonable. It's not only easier to write this kind of material, it's easier to defend it, too. Presumably that's an advantage when you pitch the product for the management.

PhoneLobster wrote:

zugschef wrote:Creating options for player character advancement which mitigate or even compensate disadvantages not inherent to the core mechanics is bad design. As soon as you add these kinds of options into the game you have the classic problem of Gygaxian "suck now, be awesome later"-game design.

Your, what is this? A manifesto? Needs work.

It's horribly worded and while I'm pretty sure you are complaining primarily about that old stupid "wizards weak early game, strong late game" thing it really isn't very clear.

I mean I'm fairly certain you are sort of also simultaneously somehow mixing that up with "gain advantages that matter at the cost of disadvantages that don't"... I can't actually tell.

And while I am more (but not entirely) certain you are NOT complaining about say the basic concept of character progression in general your text could in fact almost be read as a rant against, well, the basic concept of character progression in general.

I mean I could just pick whatever I felt like and respond to that, I'd have things to say on just about any one of those topics, but talking about them all at once in such a confused and jumbled way seems like a bad idea.

Though really, in the end I'm just mostly seeing a common subtext between this and your flight/teleportation at low levels stuff and that is you don't like wizards. Like one kicked your dog or something.

Sounds as if you're bored and still can't be bothered to read unbiased. I have nothing against wizards. But I'll try to help you understand what I mean (although others seem to have no problem with that).

Take a prestige class for casters which loses a caster level at first level, but hands out some awesome abilities somewhere five leveld later like the malconvoker for instance. That's shitty design. If you're actually asked to play that from level one you suck and might never play the part where the class is supposed to compensate.

zugschef wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:Sucking now for power later isn't a good balancing tool. It is, however, a strong rhetorical tool for deflecting criticism that the game isn't balanced.

That sounds reasonable. It's not only easier to write this kind of material, it's easier to defend it, too. Presumably that's an advantage when you pitch the product for the management.

PhoneLobster wrote:

zugschef wrote:Creating options for player character advancement which mitigate or even compensate disadvantages not inherent to the core mechanics is bad design. As soon as you add these kinds of options into the game you have the classic problem of Gygaxian "suck now, be awesome later"-game design.

Your, what is this? A manifesto? Needs work.

It's horribly worded and while I'm pretty sure you are complaining primarily about that old stupid "wizards weak early game, strong late game" thing it really isn't very clear.

I mean I'm fairly certain you are sort of also simultaneously somehow mixing that up with "gain advantages that matter at the cost of disadvantages that don't"... I can't actually tell.

And while I am more (but not entirely) certain you are NOT complaining about say the basic concept of character progression in general your text could in fact almost be read as a rant against, well, the basic concept of character progression in general.

I mean I could just pick whatever I felt like and respond to that, I'd have things to say on just about any one of those topics, but talking about them all at once in such a confused and jumbled way seems like a bad idea.

Though really, in the end I'm just mostly seeing a common subtext between this and your flight/teleportation at low levels stuff and that is you don't like wizards. Like one kicked your dog or something.

Sounds as if you're bored and still can't be bothered to read unbiased. I have nothing against wizards. But I'll try to help you understand what I mean (although others seem to have no problem with that).

Take a prestige class for casters which loses a caster level at first level, but hands out some awesome abilities somewhere five leveld later like the malconvoker for instance. That's shitty design. If you're actually asked to play that from level one you suck and might never play the part where the class is supposed to compensate.

And conversely, if you play that starting at a high enough level, you get all of the awesome and never had to suffer through the bullshit to get it.

You're really not saying anything new here though, this explanation's in the Tomes.

FrankTrollman wrote: I have honestly no idea what 5th edition D&D partisans would attempt to justify the game with, because that game has no fans.
-Username17

Balance is impossible anyway, whats really important is that everyone has fun. And you can have fun with any mechanics if you are imaginative enough. So its your fault if you dont like our game. Thats true roleplaying.

Krusk wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote: I have honestly no idea what 5th edition D&D partisans would attempt to justify the game with, because that game has no fans.
-Username17

Balance is impossible anyway, whats really important is that everyone has fun. And you can have fun with any mechanics if you are imaginative enough. So its your fault if you dont like our game. Thats true roleplaying.

I was about to get super snarky and angry about this post, until I realized you were ap'ing 5tards. Well played.

Omegonthesane wrote: You're really not saying anything new here though, this explanation's in the Tomes.

The point of this thread is not to state the fact, but to ask why this kind of design happens.

Edit: and Frank came up with a reasonable explanation.

Omegonthesane wrote:It was deemed to be balanced in the Gygax days, and TTRPG design is depressingly legacy-driven. Especially these days with there not actually being even a single fully backed edition of anything.

Is sadly all the explanation you need.

CapnTthePirateG wrote:

Omegonthesane wrote:It was deemed to be balanced in the Gygax days, and TTRPG design is depressingly legacy-driven. Especially these days with there not actually being even a single fully backed edition of anything.

Is sadly all the explanation you need.

"Balanced" is probably the wrong word. Maybe "acceptable" or "worthwhile" would be a better one? I don't think Gygax was ever particularly concerned with the idea of "balance" in its modern usage. He just thought that players having the option to go "okay, if my party carries my shitty useless character for months or years of real-time, then eventually I can carry them and it will be great" was a sufficiently interesting gamble to include in the game.

It may or may not have worked for his games, but, as people have noted in this thread and elsewhere, it is profoundly bad for everyone else.

Blicero wrote:"Balanced" is probably the wrong word. Maybe "acceptable" or "worthwhile" would be a better one? I don't think Gygax was ever particularly concerned with the idea of "balance" in its modern usage. He just thought that players having the option to go "okay, if my party carries my shitty useless character for months or years of real-time, then eventually I can carry them and it will be great" was a sufficiently interesting gamble to include in the game.

It's a classic literary motif. Lord of the Rings does it with Merry and Pippin, to a certain extent. However, it's not something that lends itself well to collaborative storytelling in the adventuring mold. You can't really blame Gygax for not realizing that a fantasy story and a fantasy RPG story aren't the same critter, since he was starting from scratch, but you can definitely blame modern designers who should know better.

I wonder if there's a way to do it mechanically that doesn't make anyone want to kill themselves. Like have a character that grants lag morale bonuses on certain things (the tank gets a bonus whenever they're actively protecting the liability/within 5 ft of them) or can give their action to other players, or something.

If people accepted that's what they were getting into from the start, they wouldn't find it as onerous.

SlyJohnny wrote:I wonder if there's a way to do it mechanically that doesn't make anyone want to kill themselves.

No there can't be. Otherwise your character doesn't suck first and is awesome later. Suck first, awesome later and awesome first, suck later can never be balanced.

SlyJohnny wrote:I wonder if there's a way to do it mechanically that doesn't make anyone want to kill themselves. Like have a character that grants lag morale bonuses on certain things (the tank gets a bonus whenever they're actively protecting the liability/within 5 ft of them) or can give their action to other players, or something.

If people accepted that's what they were getting into from the start, they wouldn't find it as onerous.

What you are describing is not "suck now, rule later", it's some kind of buff-o-mancer with a design paradigm that was more interested in game role than in fluff text.

zugschef wrote:

SlyJohnny wrote:I wonder if there's a way to do it mechanically that doesn't make anyone want to kill themselves.

No there can't be. Otherwise your character doesn't suck first and is awesome later. Suck first, awesome later and awesome first, suck later can never be balanced.

Dota and LoL seem able to pull it off. Certain heroes are brutal at low levels but scale poorly, while other heroes won't do much until they've got a bunch of levels under their belt, but then they'll rip apart the face of the enemy team.

Not to mention Dota teams seem fine with one of the player being relegated to "that bitch whose main value is spending their wealth buying utility items for the other players".

Now granted a MOBA game takes one hour while a D&D games may take years. But doesn't change the fact that in your average MOBA, the player heroes are far from balanced across the levels, yet MOBAs are stupidly popular.

maglag wrote:Dota and LoL seem able to pull it off. Certain heroes are brutal at low levels but scale poorly, while other heroes won't do much until they've got a bunch of levels under their belt, but then they'll rip apart the face of the enemy team.

Leveling is a core element of gameplay in Dota and LoL. Both teams begin level 1 and are leveling at the same time; if one hero is awesome at low level and the other suck until high level, the first one can go and kill everyone while the other is still farming, and the game may be over long before the second one is awesome.

Also, characters don't die in Dota and LoL: once you choose your character, you're stuck with him until the end of the game. There's no way you can take a good low-level character, and then commit suicide to take another character at high level.

GâtFromKI wrote:

maglag wrote:Dota and LoL seem able to pull it off. Certain heroes are brutal at low levels but scale poorly, while other heroes won't do much until they've got a bunch of levels under their belt, but then they'll rip apart the face of the enemy team.

Leveling is a core element of gameplay in Dota and LoL. Both teams begin level 1 and are leveling at the same time; if one hero is awesome at low level and the other suck until high level, the first one can go and kill everyone while the other is still farming, and the game may be over long before the second one is awesome.

Also, characters don't die in Dota and LoL: once you choose your character, you're stuck with him until the end of the game. There's no way you can take a good low-level character, and then commit suicide to take another character at high level.

Technically speaking, you can't do that either in D&D unless the DM houserules it.

If your character dies and the party can't/won't bring them back, you restart with a campaign start level character unless the DM says otherwise.

Otherwise the best way to play the game would be to keep suiciding characters to hoard their treasure. Why even worry about ressurection magic or survivability actually? Just bring a new character whenever the last one dies. Bonus points if you specialize it against the last enemy that defeated you. Your caster is out of spells for the day? Just suicide and bring a new mage with a fresh set of magic!

Or heck, the DM may throw divine intervention to ressurect your sucky character again and again (getting a bit more sucky with each ressurection due to level/con loss).