Since there are lots of authors here, I'll ask a question: How do you find a basis to start your balancing work from?
So I'm writing an RPG, and I've got a skeleton of the basic mechanics down. Figure I'll try it with a D&D type setting first, since that will be easy to get player for and shows a lot of the bits of the system (magic, races, etc).
But that means I need to make spell lists. How do I work out a good starting point for how much damage each spell does? #GameDesignRPG
Or how do I work out if Stone Shape or Summon Mount is a harder spell to cast? How do I work out the appropriate power of 'soft' resources that are useful but don't have numbers attached?
I'm also thinking of a tick based initiative. As in, swinging a dagger costs you 2 ticks, whereas swinging a longsword costs you three. You can act again that number of ticks later.
Which means I need to balance both damage and speed, and I'm not sure how to get that started. I'm thinking a spreadsheet of average damage over 10 rounds, with bigger weapons having an edge, say 1.2 times the damage on average. #RPG #GameDesign
Since getting to act again sooner is a big advantage, there should be a tradeoff, in less total damage over time. Plus it seems most games favour light, fast, weapons over big slow ones. (Rogues with sneak dice deal more damage then a plate wearing fighter, in video games light weapons usually have higher DPS, etc) #rpg #gameDesign
One of my design goals is that a traditional sword and board fighter should be a valid option. Since I basically NEVER see that in D&D. It is all glaive this and two handed sword that.
Also give people a reason to use spears. When was the last time you saw someone use a spear? #RPG #gamedesign
@kensanata Yeah, I've never liked that level of abstraction. Feel too bland for me.
@Canageek I'm curious to see how you will make these choices interesting: interesting as in being important trade-offs that one has to think about. Otherwise it just means more dice rolling, I suspect.
@kensanata Initiative system mostly. Lighter weapons let you act again more quickly, but are going to do less damage over time. So you can go again and do something else, but won't ever do as much damage as the person willing to stand there an extra tick or two.
@Canageek Hm... But what else will you be doing? More attacks? Or will it mean that you have extra actions like casting a spell and an attack with a differ in the time it takes the other fighter to attack with the battle axe?
@kensanata OH! I'm thinking tick based initiative system. I saw some people playing Sixguns and Something or other at Gencon in 06 or Origins in 07. They had a track by the side of the table. Drawing your weapon moved you so many positions down the track, aiming so many more, etc. So there was always the pressure of 'I can aim this round, but then if he fires from the hip, he will go before me then....' and I found it really cool and elegant.
@kensanata The new edition of Alternity was experimenting with a cyclic initiative system which seemed to be the same thing, but not as well done, since the looping made it confusing.
@Canageek I find systems that change the order within a round but don't change the number of actions on average to be boring. So if you use true ticks like Hackmaster and the like (long thread here, for example: https://rpggeek.com/thread/619406/tick-based-combat-replacement-rounds) more power to you. Although I'm still not totally convinced it is worth the complexity. But I'd try it, for sure.
@kensanata This would change the number of actions over time.
So if a dagger does 2 and 1H sword does 3, and a 2H sword does 4:
Everyone swings round 1.
No one moves round 2.
Round three dagger swings again.
Round four 1H-sword swings again.
Round five 2H sword swings again, and dagger swings a third time.
So you will get more swings over time with faster weapons, which also frees you up to do other things then swing like move.
@kensanata Oh yeah that is way more math. 30 ticks minus blah blah?
This is just you each get a token on the side of the battlemat. Whenever you move, move your token forward the number of spaces equal to the actions cost. Then I move the turn counter forward spaces until I hit a player or NPC token, and they move again.
@kensanata I'm thinking of going with:
Personal Weapon (Dagger, blackjack, brass knuckles) (Very fast, 1d4 damage)
One handed weapons (Sword, mace, morningstar) (Medium, 1d8 damage)
Two handed weapons (Slow, 1d12 damage)
Bows (Fast, 1d6)
Crossbows. (Slower, 1d10)
As the main distinctions.
Oh and avoid the overused tank/DPS/support triad. Its been in a million games, STOP.
So: No buff spells, or only a few. They slow things down to much.
Fighters in armour deal the most melee damage. They've got the biggest weapons, it makes the most sense.
Rogues and other 'light' characters will probably stick to bows. Less damage, but safer to use. Frees up the fighter from being just a meatsheild.
@Canageek I don't think the tank/dps/support triad emerged as design but rather as an effective tactic given a large number of options. So to fight it, one thing you could think about is not just banning it or making it impossible, but rather making it not optimal somehow from the design side.
@Halfjack I disagree. Most games have explicit support for a lightly armoured, high damage character. D&D gives rogues sneak damage, for example. It might have been an accident when it emerged in MMOs on Everquest, but I don't see it much in games before that.
I'm just going to work the math so that the best physical way to deal damage is to pick up a big two handed sword. Which makes more sense anyway.
@Halfjack First since it is a skill based game, I'm not adding explicit support for rogues. No bonus dice or what not. So if you want to be sneaky you should use a ranged weapon and skulk at the back of the fight. Ranged weapons will deal less damage, but you can pick your targets.
@Canageek I have little to add in terms of the design, but I am playing a druid with a spear in a #DungeonWorld game right now. Because DW is so narrative oriented, I seem to get a lot of advantages (and some disadvantages) by using a spear. It has reach. I can throw it. For some reason, it's also considered to be appropriate for "close/melee" use, which seems a little inaccurate and it should probably be considered difficult to use once that guy with the sword gets in close.
@Canageek Another disadvantage of the spear is that, after throwing it, I might have to spend my next move recovering it, forcing me to get in close to the same enemy I was trying to keep my distance from.
@ink_slinger I'm thinking I might have spears able to do both, but they just do less damage then a sword at close range. So a 1H sword does d8, a spear does d6. So you can use it close or far (since you can use it as a quarterstaff at close range), but it will never be quite as good as a close ranger fighter will be when up close.
@Canageek Ah, the quarter staff thing...that makes sense as a way to use the spear at close range. I hadn't thought of that, but it makes perfect sense.
@ink_slinger I'm not sure how viable that is? Most of the spears I saw in Krakow were about my height or a taller. (I was at one of the largest collections of middle ages weapons in the world, but they didn't allow pictures.)
But a quarterstaff should have your hands at the 1st and 3rd quarters, so also taller then you. So I don't know.
I'm not aiming for historical accuracy: I have GURPS for that.
@ink_slinger One of my big problems with 'narrative balance' is then you get a charismatic player able to do more with the same stats as a less charismatic player, as they can talk the DM into letting them get away with more.
@Canageek That hasn't been a problem in my experience, but I haven't played many narrative games. At least in Dungeon World, there are still dice and rules limiting successes and such...it's just follows from the narrative first.
I can see how that would be a risk with certain players/DMs, though. The narrative equivalent of min-maxing, in a way?
@ink_slinger Except the player might not even realize they are doing it, but yeah.
Sort of the problem of the barfight with the chandeliers. If a naturally charismatic player asks, it seems reasonable so it is allowed. If a non-charismatic player asks, it seems less reasonable. So if you expect players to be swinging on chandeliers a lot you should have defined rules so that the playing field is fair.
@Canageek I went the other way and all the weapons do 1d6 damage, even the 2H sword. The only benefit I give the 2H sword is that it is an automatic whirlwind attack and the polearm always has reach.