Weekly updates:
This week was a really productive week. I did several more playtests, and feel confident enough in four of the initial five abilities that I'm adding a three more. I also did my outside playtest this week with my brother Nick, and it went decently. Nick basically liked the game, though stumbled on a number of rules. It has left me wondering whether I need to simplify the rules, or just make them clearer. I'm going to spend time this week making a quick reference sheet, and seeing if that helps.
For this week, I'll start with a question: How do you decide the relative value of two characters?
Ideally, if the game lets you take either character X or character Y, then they should be approximately equally good (with caveats described in a previous post). If Y was better, then why would you ever take X? Many games deal with this by having a point system with high levels of granularity. For example, in Necromunda, a plasma pistol is 25 points, a bolt pistol is 20 points, a sword is 10 points, etc. This gives you the ability to make things differently powerful; otherwise, all weapons cost the same, then why would anyone ever pick the sword over the plasma pistol?
That said, not every game does this. For example, in Team Fortress II each person plays a character, so all of the characters need to be similar-ish (again, with previous caveats). Similarly, in D&D, the granularity is based on levels, so going up a level should be equally good for everyone (at least approximately). Perhaps what makes these games different is that you get one of a thing, rather than a variable number of things.
In old versions of Illeria, I assumed characters could have up to three levels, each of which granted an ability (with a few strong abilities costing two levels). Each character was then worth 2 points plus their number of levels, making two level 3 characters of similar value to two level 1 characters plus a level 2 character. The reason for this was somewhat historical. When I started Illeria, I simplified playtesting by giving each character an ability. I had eventually planned to turn everything into point values, but the more I playtested, the more the level system stuck. And, making every ability worth one or two levels simplified balancing the abilities. For example, at one time I had an ability called "Deep Wound;" I struggled with it and eventually removed it because it was never as good as having a bow, summoning demons, etc. It was also easier to balance using the simulations I used at the time.
There was a great GDC short-talk on legacy effects in games. Soren's thesis was that games inherit rules from older editions, prototypes, or games in the genre, and those historical accidents don't always serve a purpose. For example, rolling dice to move is fundamental to classic games like Backgammon, Monopoly, or Parcheesi. Hero's Quest and Clue also used this mechanic, even though it would arguably make more sense and work better if characters moved 6 spaces per turn. It seems like the only reason for this mechanic is that its what boardgames did at the time (which is probably why it is so rare these days). Soren's whole point was that one should occasionally step back and ask, "Why is this mechanism here? Is it still serving a purpose, or making the game more complicated?" and that it is better to remove dumb rules that patch them.
Thinking about this, I realized that my level system might be such an inheritance, and that the game might be better if I had a point system. That way, I could have a 3 point ability called "Deep Wound" and a 7 point ability called "Bow;" rather than having to eliminate "Deep Wound." I updated my simulations to give points values, and started to plan out how to update the campaign mode to (so that characters advance by gaining +5 points, rather than 1 level).
I have since decided that greater granularity may not be better for Illeria. One reason is the limits of playtesting. It would take a ton of games to determine if a bow is 5 vs. 6 vs. 7 points, and I don't have an army of employees to playtest Illeria. But, I can playtest enough say that a bow is good enough to be a 1 point ability, but too weak to be a 2 point ability. I think part of this is just that granularity suggests accuracy in a way that levels don't: I think players will be more forgiving if 1st level character with a bow and a 1st level character with Soul Touch are not quite the same; if a character with a bow costs 10 points and a character with Soul Touch costs 9 points, then you really expect the bow to be about 10% better.
I think it will also simplify things for the player. In my experience, it is so much easier to design a party of 4 level 1 characters and a level 3 character, as opposed to five characters with 120 points worth of abilities. It also makes the campaign mode easier: a character that learned something gains 1 level (which they can always spend on an ability), as opposed to +4 points (which would be worthless if they want a 5 point ability).
So, I guess no change, but now I understand why I'm doing something better.
No comments:
Post a Comment