Rainbow or Monocolor Brokenness?

Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp · Sun Jun 21, 2009 10:05 pm

One thing I've noticed with developers with RPGs and one card game and in current D&D editions is an unwillingness to make current powers/classes/cards comparable with other powers/classes/cards that they consider to be overpowered/broken. However, these developers are not willing to ban or fix what they considered overpowered already present in the system.

Sometimes, developers will let new different powerful abilities into the game, only to ban or nerf them to relative uselessness (might as well use the same-old broken powers).

So my question to you all is:

"If you're going to have broken or overpowered elements in a system, should there be only one broken element or should there be many broken elements so that you can break the system in different ways?"

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:12 am

The Tomb approach, which works surprisingly (to me) well, is to subtly nerf the broken bits and the throw in a bunch of overpowered options, such that the overall power level is raised to be nearer to the formerly singular power trips.

But to answer your question, if we assume that there will be no nerfage or removal of any elements, having only one broken element is probably preferable, so long as that element can be sidestepped with a 'gentleman's agreement'. If there are many broken element then sidestepping becomes impossible as you're in a minefield of overpowered.

User · Post by **User** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:29 am

Raising the power level is generally a stupid idea. First doing so makes most options that were previously balanced underpowered. They either become obsolete or in need of revision. Secondly, new broken bits will emerge eventually, and these will necessitate raising the power level again, creating an endless cycle of power inflation. This would result in a situation where you couldn't play PH1 characters with the PH3 ones, and only one broken PH1 class is fit for a game with PH2 characters (or a handful of broken feats/spells. Whatever). This may be great from a publisher's perspective, since the player always has the need to keep up with new material if anyone else in their group uses it, but it sucks from a player's perspective because the books you buy don't have much of a lifespan. In contrast, fixing a few spells or abilities requires little more than inserting a new sheet of paper into your old books to keep them usable indefinitely.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:00 am

Every game system is going to have a range of power levels. Writing additional material that is at the level of the lower power levels is dumb, because that bonus material won't get used. Bonus material has to be good enough and noticeable enough to drive out core material on the lower end or it simply will never get used.

-Username17

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:02 am

Well, if you look at fighting games, a lot of them are balanced based on some really good characters, and some average but still okay characters, and in that situation, a single super powered option destroys the game.

But if you look at Marvel vs Capcom II, most every character has something incredibly broken going on, but because everyone is broken, and different combination make things more broken, it is so broken that it's actually not.

Sure you don't play half the characters, but who cares if the top 10 are awesome.

It's not about raising the power level, it's about having lots of options at the same level.

If you have a lot of options at one level, and one option at a higher level, your game is objectively less balanced than if you have a bunch of options at the high level, and some others that are less good.

If you only have 1-3 broken things, your game is only about those 1-3 things. But if you add 20 other broken things that are just as broken as the 1-3 and then up the challenge of opposition, you have a better game with more options.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:06 am

One broken element is easier to nerf than seven broken elements, so I'll go with the former.

Previn · Post by **Previn** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:36 am

FrankTrollman wrote:Every game system is going to have a range of power levels. Writing additional material that is at the level of the lower power levels is dumb, because that bonus material won't get used. Bonus material has to be good enough and noticeable enough to drive out core material on the lower end or it simply will never get used.

-Username17

I have to disagree with this. Additional material can add on new options without having to be more powerful as long as the new options are significantly interesting. I could see the difficulty in doing this consistently though, and the ease of just upping the power level instead.

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:50 am

"If you're going to have broken or overpowered elements in a system, should there be only one broken element or should there be many broken elements so that you can break the system in different ways?"

This is elementry. If a game only has one broken element, then it is degenerate, as only one side/character using 1 tactic/strategy will be effective, making the entire game into Bison vs Bison mirrors, which is dull. It can work if the bison vs bison match is sufficently deep, but this is not typically the case.

It is easy to ban a single broken element, and if that is your response it is a good idea.

Multiple different equally broken strategies is actually a pretty good game. A fighting gaming in which 10 characters have 20+ abusable tactics is actually good - as per mavel vs capcom 2.

So yeah.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:08 am

Previn wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:Every game system is going to have a range of power levels. Writing additional material that is at the level of the lower power levels is dumb, because that bonus material won't get used. Bonus material has to be good enough and noticeable enough to drive out core material on the lower end or it simply will never get used.

-Username17
I have to disagree with this. Additional material can add on new options without having to be more powerful as long as the new options are significantly interesting. I could see the difficulty in doing this consistently though, and the ease of just upping the power level instead.

That is not a disagreement then. Examples would be if you would make a feat on par with Toughness and Endurance. No one would take those, but if you make one on par with something like Power attack, or the metamagic feat that allow for changing the spells damage type then those would probably be used.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 5:08 am

Previn wrote:I have to disagree with this. Additional material can add on new options without having to be more powerful as long as the new options are significantly interesting. I could see the difficulty in doing this consistently though, and the ease of just upping the power level instead.

You are confusing "more powerful" with "equally powerful as the top tier, but different."

Take the game of D&D, but without Web. The best level 2 spell is absolutely Glitterdust. You take it all the time.

Now you have a few options:

1) Add the spell Dusty Glitter, which blinds people on a failed save, has a 10ft radius area, and lasts for one round per two levels.

2) Add Explosive Glittery awesome, which blinds people for 2 rounds per CL, has a 30ft radius area, and also blinds for one round on a successful save.

3) Add the web spell.

1 & 2 are still monocular brokenness. In one of them everyone memorizes Glitterdust, in the other, everyone memorizes Explosive Glittery Awesome.

3 is rainbow. Sometimes when you are going adventuring in a dungeon, you'll memorize Web instead of Glitterdust. Sometimes you'll memorize some of each, ect. You have two viable options instead of one.

Admittedly, Glitterdust is so good that these two aren't quite comparable, but they probably would be if Web didn't have the restriction on it's casting.

The key point is that people will use the best things available, so adding a new better thing replaces all previous options, adding a new worse thing is a waste of damn space, and adding a new equally good thing actually adds new options.

Caedrus · Post by **Caedrus** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:05 am

What's important is how many options of similar power there are up at the upper tier (that is, you could have 20 crappy character and 10 good characters, but only the top 10 matter. Increasing that number from 10 good characters to 20 would be nice).

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:16 am

I totally agree with Frank here.

If you want to see what happens when you go the 'Monocolor' Brokenness, you needn't look any further than what has happened to 4th Edition.

Right now, the ranger does the most damage out of any class--they have Twin Strike, a bunch of minor/immediate action encounter attack powers, a pretty easy-to-use bonus damage scheme and some really painful dailies. And this is before we get into things like multiclassing into Fighter or high-level Beastmaster Rangers.

Assuming WotC isn't completely ignorant of how awesome Rangers are, right now instead of making new DPR classes that can match it, they just sort of pretend that the class doesn't exist when they make new ones. This is really obvious with the Barbarian and the Avenger, who kinda-sorta are in the same ballpark as the Ranger for one-encounter adventures at low levels but get permanently overtaken by level 7. You know, discounting cheese like Storm of Blades/Hurricane of Blades.

Now, these classes still get used--I've seen them get used, because there will always be people who pick underpowered options because they look 'cool'. But right now I'm putting the Barbarian in my group to complete shame with my Tempest Fighter and all they can do is just stand there and cry in the corner, because WotC can't get its head out of their asses.

Murtak · Post by **Murtak** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:05 am

Any broken elements should be fixed or removed, period. Of course many apply the term "broken" to anything that can't move out of the way fast enough. To me, "broken" means allowing the ability alters gameplay enough to be unrecognizable. Thus Polymorph is broken. Divinely persisted buffs are merely overpowered.

And as for ranges of power and adding new material, what I think is important is having no "power spikes" by which I mean no options which are strictly superior to other options. I would prefer to also have no options which are underpowered, but the former is far more important. Weak options just get avoided, but strong options effectively make the entire middle ground vanish. So if I am designing classes and I have the 3rd edition cleric, rogue, ranger and warblade and fighter I will probably nerf the cleric, ignore the fighter (unless he is easily fixable) and add more classes at the power level of the rogue. If my classes are cleric, wizard, druid and fighter I will nerf nothing (though I would still get rid of game breakers like polymorph), ignore the fighter and add more classes at the power level of the full casters.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:42 am

I think it's also important to consider how easy it is to nerf something. For example in Shadowrun a number of "powerplays" can be dealt with without actual rules changes. Background count can serve as a way to reduce the impact of magic, as can drones as enemies. Enemy hackers and building layouts can counter an overly-drone heavy strategy. In both cases the other "classes" are not that much affected, and get relatively stronger.

Previn · Post by **Previn** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 5:42 pm

Kaelik wrote:
Previn wrote:I have to disagree with this. Additional material can add on new options without having to be more powerful as long as the new options are significantly interesting. I could see the difficulty in doing this consistently though, and the ease of just upping the power level instead.
You are confusing "more powerful" with "equally powerful as the top tier, but different."

Forgive me, but I do not think I'm confusing anything.

Using your Glitterbust example because I think it shows where the miscommunication is: I'm not talking about Spell B must do the same thing as Glitterdust, but slightly/wholly better or slightly different. I'm talking about spell B being a completely mechanically different spell. For instance, introducing Baleful Transposition or Create Magic Tattoo in a game that did not have them previously rather than Glitterdust 2.0.

People play less powerful choices, even knowing full well that they are less powerful. 3.5 did not see everyone playing Wizards/Clerics/Druids only, even when they knew those were the 'best' classes. Not everyone in Eberron was a Planar Shepherd, not every melee fighter used a spiked chain as an overgeneralization.

To take an example from magic: Some players don't play the baddest most overpowering deck that they can. Some people like playing their Thallid deck. Some people like trying to piece together that crazy combo, even if they don't win every game. Someone may really want to win using a Dark Steel Reactor, because it's fun and interesting to them.

A player is often willing to take a less powerful choice because they view the mechanics as more fun, or because it fits the concept of what they want to play better. You can produce material based on that rather than power creep, and even have it be weaker (though not absurdly so) as long as the player base finds it interesting and fun.

Akula · Post by **Akula** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:43 pm

So basically, you're saying that there is no problem because people will play badly. That sucks. It means that you cannot have a Fighter in the caster party or a caster in the hitting-stuff party. Everyone should be playing at the same relative power level. The only way to ensure that is to make everything roughly the same in terms of power. You can do that by taking the casters down to the level of the Fighter or you can take the Fighter up to the level of the Wizard. Having only a handful of viable options hurts the game. The more choices you have, the better things are.

Previn · Post by **Previn** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:11 pm

Akula wrote:So basically, you're saying that there is no problem because people will play badly.

No, I'm not, in fact I would implore you to re-read what I posted. I specifically point out that; "You can produce material based on that rather than power creep, and even have it be weaker (though not absurdly so) as long as the player base finds it interesting and fun."

You suddenly grabbed onto the word 'weaker' and jumped out the 14th floor window because someone lit a match and you feared for fire, as your fighter vrs caster example clearly shows. Quite frankly there's so much stupidity about 'no one plays a fighter when they could play a wizard' that it really deserves it's own thread.

If you make a set/book/ruleset that is fun, it doesn't matter if it's weaker in any objective sense relating to play or sales. If people buy if because it's fun (significantly interesting), then you make money and they are happy. Where exactly is the problem besides the intellectual masturbation on how it isn't perfectly balanced?

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:44 pm

Where exactly is the problem besides the intellectual masturbation on how it isn't perfectly balanced?

Because then you have situations where someone decides that a soulknife is really fucking cool and can he pretty please play one in your party of rogue/cleric/druid/beguiler.

You have a series of choices, none of them good.

A) You refuse the soulknife (or don't allow it without significant changes, same thing), making the player sad.
B) You allow the soulknife in and decrease the challenge of encounters, making everyone else sad.
C) You allow the soulknife and keep the challenges the same, causing the soulknife to either get overshadowed or bring everyone else down. More sadness.
D) You allow the soulknife in and give them stealth buffs, which can either create mistrust among the other players or make the player feel singled-out for sucking. And you know what? This one is the best option.

Of course, all of this drama could've been avoided if the person who wrote the fucking soulknife class just printed a decent class.

Mask_De_H · Post by **Mask_De_H** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:51 pm

There is a combination of A and D which worked alright for the game I ran: you give a player one of the awesome classes, and rework the flavor for him so that they get the things that made them want to play the Soulknife without sucking a nut.

It's almost akin to giving a guy that wants to play a Fighter the RoW version instead.

zeruslord · Post by **zeruslord** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:03 pm

If it is only mildly weaker, like the Rogue in a party with a druid, a cleric, and a beguiler, then that falls into the range he was talking about. The thing he is objecting to is wankery over a druid not being balanced with a wizard when they are both perfectly playable classes. If we added the Rogue into a hypothetical game I'm calling Windows & Wizards that has as original base classes the core full casters, the Archivist, the Artificer, the Beguiler, and the Dread Necromancer, that would be OK, even though it is slightly weaker. Bringing up the soulknife is missing the point.

Previn · Post by **Previn** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:08 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:
Where exactly is the problem besides the intellectual masturbation on how it isn't perfectly balanced?
Because then you have situations where someone decides that a soulknife is really fucking cool and can he pretty please play one in your party of rogue/cleric/druid/beguiler.

Does the "not absurdly so" phrase not show up when I type it?

Let me be perfectly clear: I'm talking about a +1 bonus that does something cool vrs a +4 bonus. I'm not talking about a +1 bonus that does something cool against a Shapechanged Wizard with +40 bonuses.

Not going to get into the 'can't play week classes' argument here.

My point from my first post in here; "Additional material can add on new options without having to be more powerful as long as the new options are significantly interesting." stands just fine.

All that's being done at this point is trying to argue with me about how being weaker is always bad and wrong using what are frankly absurd comparisons that have little to no relevance based on what I've typed, and repeated, and clarified.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:17 pm

My point from my first post in here; "Additional material can add on new options without having to be more powerful as long as the new options are significantly interesting." stands just fine.

All that's being done at this point is trying to argue with me about how being weaker is always bad and wrong using what are frankly absurd comparisons that have little to no relevance based on what I've typed, and repeated, and clarified.

That's the kind of thinking that gave us the Avenger and the Barbarian. 'Oh, they're weaker than the ranger and fighter, sure, but how much weaker, really? Maybe about a +2 or +3 bonus to attack and damage overall?' Trust me. People notice.

Previn · Post by **Previn** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:50 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:That's the kind of thinking that gave us the Avenger and the Barbarian. 'Oh, they're weaker than the ranger and fighter, sure, but how much weaker, really? Maybe about a +2 or +3 bonus to attack and damage overall?' Trust me. People notice.

No, most people don't notice (or care). Really, you're still missing my point.

How many people still think skill challenges are fine in 4th? Clearly everyone only plays rangers and fighters in 4th edition if they want to be a melee striker, yes? Every 4th party was only Rangers and Warlords when it came out, right?

That the barbarian is mechanically weaker, and you can prove this through numbers that you've crunched with a bunch of other people on the internet, so no sane person could have fun with them?

Intellectual masturbation. I think that it's your line of thinking (everything must be perfectly balanced) that gave us 4th, is it not?

Really all you're doing is proving my point. The barbarian is weaker yes, but not enough for it to really matter in game the vast majority of the time, if ever. Players still play with it knowing this and have fun, which is my point.

But again you've devolved to the 'can't have fun if weaker' argument that very clearly is not the case.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:55 pm

Look, I've played in Mutants and Masterminds games where fellow heroes notice that my toughness saves was two DC higher than the PL and needled me about it until I showed them the rule for alternate damage/attack defense/toughness.

In the tabletop game I am playing at right now I have a player bitching about melee rangers getting more skills than fighters.

So don't tell me that people 'don't care'. They do notice, it's just that we've been drilled by Gygax not to stop a game because things don't 'feel fair' and rules lawyer is only a slightly less dirty word than 'cheater'.

Previn · Post by **Previn** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 6:04 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Look, I've played in Mutants and Masterminds games where fellow heroes notice that my toughness saves was two DC higher than the PL and needled me about it until I showed them the rule for alternate damage/attack defense/toughness.

In the tabletop game I am playing at right now I have a player bitching about melee rangers getting more skills than fighters.

So don't tell me that people 'don't care'. They do notice, it's just that we've been drilled by Gygax not to stop a game because things don't 'feel fair' and rules lawyer is only a slightly less dirty word than 'cheater'.

Well, I'm sorry you have people that have to be #1 or something is wrong in your games, but again, very clearly, there is a huge amount of the player base that demonstrably does not feel this way at all.

You seem to be having a big problem admitting that people can have different point of view and play style than your games. In 21 years of running and playing D&D, I have had 1 player complain about what you see as an insurmountable problem of not being as good as someone else.

{Edits: fixing tag and missing word}