|
In game terms, what, exactly is balance? Typically, a game's quality depends largely on its 'fun factor,' or balance. Opinions may differ, but mine is being able to use one's abilities in a significant way to achieve desired goals.
Choices in a perfectly-balanced game boil down to style. World of Warcraft (WoW) is, at present, an immensely popular massively multiplayer online role-playing game, that, while not perfectly balanced, is still well-balanced in most cases. Of WoW's three main roles- damage, healing, and tanking (absorbing enemy damage)- each class can do at least one of them to a great degree. Rogues prefer to sneak behind their targets, stun them, and let loose. Mages stand in place for long periods, readying burst damage spells. Warriors charge into the fray and either tank or hurt things lots in melee. Priests typically heal party members, but also can mind control foes and hurt them with shadow spells. Druids can fill any role depending on their specialization. Because of the large number of classes (9 as of 2.4.2) each with 3 specializations, players have a lot of choice from the outset on how they will interact with the world, but choosing a class severely narrows these choices.
How does this relate to balance? The more choices available, the harder balance becomes, and almost inevitably, designers favor certain choices. Based on sheer versatility, druids make for the best class. A properly-prepared druid can fill any role, and often he can fill a second or even third role to a lesser degree at any time. Does this make the druid better than other classes? Certainly, for some purposes. In the arena, standing still for long will likely get you killed. Druids are masters of healing over time spells (HoTs). Most HoTs are faster to cast than large burst heals, such as from priests. Does this mean I'd prefer to have a the healer on my arena team be a druid instead of a priest? Certainly, most of the time. How then is this balanced?
Note this article's title and emphasize profit. Blizzard is a company that makes its money by offering a service, an MMORPG in this case. This is done largely by balancing in turns. When Blizzard feels more people should play a class, Blizzard changes things to favor this class. This is great if it's your turn (rogues, druids, warriors at present) and horrible if it isn't (mages, shamen). Balancing in turns works in WoW since WoW is continually updated and changed and most character imbalances aren't readily apparent until endgame when the developers already have your money.
Also regarding WoW's endgame are raids, groups of at least 10 characters working toward a common goal, and player versus player (PvP), where your job is to outwit, outplay, and outlast your opposition. Balance in these situations requires tight constraints since many if not most WoW players want to be and will end up here. Many people complain that only certain classes or character builds are viable. This is understandable considering Blizzard's goal of creating a certain type of game experience, but it greatly stifles creativity and aggrevates many people. For example, Archimonde is the end boss of the Mount Hyjal raid. For months, creative players were able to take less damage by positioning themselves just outside the reach of one of his attacks. Blizzard learned how this worked and cried foul, calling it an exploit and preventing it in a patch. Long ago, Blizzard also removed a similar clever evasion tactic in Blackwing Lair, an old raid instance.
With such seeming hatred for player innovation, how does WoW have so many paying customers? I mentioned most balance problems aren't readily apparent until the end. In the early and mid games, quests offer a steady stream of small tasks/challenges and rewards. (WoW is littered with thousands of quests.) Also, players can take up to 2 professions, such as gathering herbs, mining ore, mixing potions, and enchanting items. Professions are time sinks that offer a similar stepwise progression. Someone with Mining 1 can only mine copper, but not tin, silver, or other more expensive ore, and must mine and smelt ore to raise his skill to mine more profitable ores. New crafting recipes, such as for potions or enchants, offer little benefit until the top end, and gathering materials to raise your skill by even one point may require hours of earning money or gathering supplies.
In contrast, can a system that allows a wide variety of tasks be balanced? Perhaps. Tabletop gaming such as Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) has allowed for creative fun, if imbalance, for over 30 years. From first edition 'til version 3.5, melee characters were typically more able to handle low-level situations. In 3.5, a typical level 1 barbarian has at least double the hit points of a level 1 wizard and is able to proficiently swing his axe for hours per day with no loss of effectiveness.
Meanwhile, a level 1 wizard (non-specialized and using only the Player's Handbook rules) can cast one or two level 1 spells per day. (He gets some level 0 spells, but I'll leave these out of the argument for now.) This wizard can cast grease to make a corridor or object slippery or slicken an ally's clothing to prevent him from being grabbed. He could put an enemy to sleep. He could charm person someone to make this person act like a long-time friend. Finally, the wizard could resign himself to doing hit point damage by casting magic missile, hurting foes for less on average than the aforementioned barbarian. Such a wizard can be incredibly versatile, but he must choose his spells carefully.
Some of you are thinking, "Why would anyone want to play the wizard?" Wizards, even low-level wizards, with proper tactics and planning can take on any level-appropriate challenge and win if the appropriate spells affect them, and the wizard acts before the enemies. At high levels, wizards only grow in power, but with poor planning or a lack of spells to cast, such a wizard is effectively a commoner in fancy clothing who cries when you burn his books. Playing an effective wizard requires extensive research to your spell effects and knowing when to cast what, but you can wield phenominal cosmic power.
After reading this, you may now be wondering, "Why would anyone want to play the barbarian?" At low levels, the barbarian would most likely dominate; after all, he can swing his weapon again and again and again and cleave off heads and he probably won't drop in a hit or two. At mid levels, he'd still be competitive with the aformentioned wizard. At high levels, the wizard can summon creatures to tank about as well as the barbarian and feels less guilt if he includes summonlings in harmful area effects. The wizard must still rest for 8 hours per day to regain his spells, and playing an effective barbarian requires much less effort since it's typically, "Find enemy, move next to enemy, attack enemy 'til death, repeat."
Why not start with a party of physical characters for low levels and retire the barbarian horde then bring in the wizard academy at higher levels? Properly-guarded low-level wizards are still potent, if for their knowledge skills instead of their spells. Properly-built high-level barbarians are typically more productive in combat due to class levels than summonlings, and should the party encounter an area where magic doesn't function (an antimagic field) or functions wildly (wild magic zone), the barbarian will be able to use most of his tricks while the wizard is screwed.
Another reason not to trade characters is that players who roleplay their characters and develop extensive personalities and backstories want to put these to good use. Why would a barbarian who swore an oath to protect the party that saved his life suddenly disappear or kill himself? What if, simply, I want to be a barbarian in a high-level campaign revered for his athleticism and killing ability, or a low-level wizard who struggles to reshape reality as he sees fit? Character concept is a critical part of fun!
One balancing factor in tabletop games is the game master, also called the dungeon master (DM) for D&D who acts as a referee and handles most if not all storyline. The DM may impose a penalty for introducing a new character, and there are times that doing so is inopportune, such as if they're trapped in a remote region. Also, there are plenty of poorly-worded rules out there, and going strictly by the rules as written, you can create infinite power loops with a thorough understanding of the rules. No DM who values his campaign will allow this.
When a game attempts to simulate reality with consistency and logic, certain questions arise, these need not be contradictions, but points for DMs to consider. If anyone who can afford to be raised from the dead such as a noble or a rich adventurer can be, why do these people stay dead? Is there a lack of clerics in the world that can cast raise dead or resurrection? Do these people simply not want to be returned to their mortal lives?
Also, how can there be an economy realistic enough to work and simple enough to use efficiently in a game? A wooden ladder costs less than the raw materials needed to make it! A wood club costs nothing to create- you're effectively picking up a tree branch- and thus can be created instantly!
On a higher end, if 50 gold coins weigh a pound, you could carry around, say, 200,000 gold in a magic container, but what about trading that for an item? Merchants would need massive vaults or similar magic containers to hold the coins! Where in the world, even a fantasy world, can you get 4,000 pounds of gold, or even larger amounts for significantly more expensive items? I leave that decision to the DMs.
Don't get me wrong: I typically love the notion of immersive worlds that react logically to my party, and I even DMed such a campaign, but there are just some times when the DM must ban things or: alter rules to keep his campaign intact since if the player characters can do it, the villains can probably do it so much better. Perhaps this is why so much changed in fourth edition.
With the release of fourth edition D&D, numerous people have complained that 4E feels too much like a video game. The player characters are obviously intended as heroes, story feels deemphasized, only certain people can be resurrected, and wizards can do less. In short, 4E's core rules are simpler and more restrictive and it's intended as a game, mostly a combat game, instead of an attempt to simulate a living world. Many compare it to a tabletop version of WoW, if only to state that the rules seem intended to limit options instead of expanding them. (Some say people will pay less attention to story, but people have roleplayed without rulesets for years!) While simplification may make a DM's job of preparing for games easier, this feels like a step backward compared to 3.5. At present, so few character concepts are viable compared to 3.5, but the soon-to-arrive flood of supplement books will be profitable for Wizards of the Coast and shall hopefully allow people to do what they want, DM willing. I can only wonder if 4E will allow fun to be had by all, and at what cost.
Greg Campbell
June 23, 2008
|
RSS feed
iTunes