RolePlay onLine RPoL Logo

, welcome to Community Chat

00:03, 29th March 2024 (GMT+0)

When game designers try to take things back.

Posted by AtomicGamer
AtomicGamer
member, 69 posts
Sat 21 Mar 2015
at 21:10
  • msg #1

When game designers try to take things back

Have you noticed this?

When a game designer notices that a specific feature doesn't really do what he wants, but instead of errata-ing it out, he keeps trying to sort of phase it out.

One of the earlier examples that caught my attention was the Destiny mechanic in Star Wars Saga edition. It seems obvious that as the system progressed, game designers regretted having put it there, likely thinking it was too powerful, and kept trying to offer different mechanics to replace it, such as the legacy mechanic and backgrounds.

The problem was, legacies, while cool, didn't give you the same sense of accomplishment and growth as destinies, and backgrounds, while also cool and interesting for customization, were just way way less powerful than destinies, so no players wound up using otherwise cool ideas.

I've noticed the same thing in Pathfinder recently. They keep offering the rogue cool archetypes that trade out trapfinding, for instance, and they also keep offering bard less powerful alternatives to Inspire Courage.

I guess it just bothers me that a) they only offer us something cool by making us give up something we don't want to give up, putting that cool thing out of reach and b) they're not willing to stand up and say they may have made a mistake to begin with.
GamerHandle
member, 677 posts
Umm.. yep.
So, there's this door...
Sat 21 Mar 2015
at 21:45
  • msg #2

Re: When game designers try to take things back

Yes.  I agree with the statement.  This has happened and does happen.

Unfortunately, I think this is a result of attempting to make deep and wide systems; but not having the development staff (and the overall munchkinry) to foresee every consequence.

Taking Pathfinder: the Synthesist is actually (likely) the worst in terms of examples of what you describe.  To the point of it being outright removed from Organized Play.

Many times - when it comes to alternative features: they always want to remove the quintessential piece of the class, in exchange for one or two other mild features as a means of preserving what they see as balance.

The entire 3.X series suffers from this in large part due to the feat selection.  There's just no way a dedicated development staff of 2, 4, 8, or even 16 people can possibly foresee every outcome and how their verbiage will be abused.  It is also exacerbated by the fact that they don't employ a sufficient number of 'grammar nuts' to make sure the vocabulary, terminology, and usage of the same is 100% consistent.  To this end: House Rules.  They happen.  Even at conventions house rules happen at each table.

I'm not as familiar with Star Wars Saga - so I can't speak to that much; but, I imagine it suffered from many of the same problems: "ooh look, I got a neat idea... okay let's just pull something... yeah that thing.."
Sithraider
member, 113 posts
The dead, they walk!
16 in the clip...
Sat 21 Mar 2015
at 23:20
  • msg #3

Re: When game designers try to take things back

Saga Edition suffered greatly from that GamerHandle. However, SE really suffered from the fact that WoTC cut the staff to one developer. Each book (minus art, editing etc) was handled by one person if I remember correctly.

I don't remember their being as much a discrepancy as Atomic Gamer talked about, but there certainly were some. Each book in the SE line introduced new concepts to the series. One book would focus on an era of the fiction and introduce new mechanics like; squad level combat, mass combat, starships etc etc. Personally I thought SE was pretty well balanced as far as D20 games went. It was my favorite version of D20.  There were still ways to break the game mechanically.

I think mechanical issues are always going to come up in crunchy games built off modifying the base rules through "feats." It's especially evident when you build characters to be the best they can be mechanically. Game writers just can't compensate for or anticipate the creativity of all players.
willvr
member, 650 posts
Sun 22 Mar 2015
at 13:32
  • msg #4

Re: When game designers try to take things back

Whilst I think it happens; I don't think it happens with rogues and trapfinding. As someone who's played 3.5 as well as PF; trapfinding just ain't that great in PF. It's good yeah, but not gamebreakingly good. Also, if they considered it that good, they wouldn't have been offering it through archetypes to other classes to have.
kouk
member, 558 posts
Wed 25 Mar 2015
at 01:06
  • msg #5

Re: When game designers try to take things back

Some of that "Forget about that power, try this one instead" does exist through (almost?) all iterations of D&D. But I think it's a little more nuanced than simply trying to issue errata without issuing errata.

The writers have several things on their minds aside from game balance:

There is always a need to generate new content. Players always want more options, companies want more books to sell, and most gaming writers that aren't the original creators get paid only by ... writing.

If you are increasing options, something needs to be traded out to preserve balance. Losing something trivial for something powerful, is obvious bad balance. People would push back against blatant power creep. But if you trade out something substantial, maybe bordering on OP in some people's opinion, then whatever you are gaining in the trade is almost guaranteed to be of equal or lesser value. If that powerful something is also relatively "boring" in exchange for some more "flavorful" abilities, all the better. This makes it a lot safer to introduce new powers.

Sometimes the writers just have to try out new crazy ideas that they don't expect will be loved, but who knows? There may also be beta-test benefits for a future supplement or game version, like Book of Nine Swords was in 3.5.

Sometimes there is a (perceived) clamor from certain segments of the fanbase to get rid of option X and replace it with option Y, while other fans love option X wholeheartedly. A trade-off system keeps everyone happy in a way the nerf bat wouldn't.

Deciding on and publishing actual official errata is probably more bureaucratic and time intensive in the writers' office than publishing new options. It's certainly less "sexy" and prone to blowback from disgruntled fans, and in the worst case disgruntled coworkers (or bosses).
This message was last edited by the user at 01:13, Wed 25 Mar 2015.
DarkLightHitomi
member, 881 posts
Wed 25 Mar 2015
at 02:09
  • msg #6

Re: When game designers try to take things back

Don't forget that there are different kinds of balance, and so trying for one kind of balance usually breaks other kinds of balance.

So sometimes the designers are aiming in one direction, while the players start complaining because they are wanting, or expecting, a different focus.

Early editions of DnD for example weren't even trying for the modern common idea of balance, Gygax and Arneson has a very different focus in mind.
Sagetim
member, 17 posts
Thu 9 Apr 2015
at 08:18
  • msg #7

Re: When game designers try to take things back

Well, on the part of Destinies and Sagas edition, they might have simply not had anywhere else to really go with it. The destinies included in the core book are vague enough to allow creativity in what they can cover, so at first glance it looks like you've got all your bases covered in that area and it doesn't really need more supplement devoted to it.

That said, I appreciated legacies and backgrounds, but in the case of legacies it felt like they should be more of their own mechanic than playing off destinies (since, if I remember correctly, you couldn't really complete a legacy. The best you could hope for would be to keep upholding it, or maybe trade it out for a destiny you can complete later on). And completing destinies was kind of where it's at. If you completed a destiny you would get a permanent bonus to your stats in some way, like a +2 to a stat of your choice, or a +5 to a skill, or so on. If a player invested in a legacy, while other players invested in destinies and were able to complete them, then mister 'I'm holding up my legacy' seems like they would start getting left behind from the lack of similar completion bonuses.
Sign In