View Full Version : Classes Mechanically Distinct XTREME!
Reading the out of combat abilities thread, somebody mentioned that in some games for them the lack of distinct class mechanics made everything feel bland. I'm wondering if anybody knows of a game that's done the opposite, had completely disparate mechanics for each class or archetype. If not what do you folks think of that?
Is not it sightly the case with dnd who can have in the same team a truenamer a fighter and a typyverse wizard creating armies in one spell?
Is not it sightly the case with dnd who can have in the same team a truenamer a fighter and a typyverse wizard creating armies in one spell?
That would be more in that direction than something like Mutants and Masterminds and 4E but not quite so far as I'm thinking. In 3.5 the mechanics are supposed to be operating the same way, they just don't in practice, I imagine if you had that as a design goal you could so some very different things.
How distinct are you asking for? On one end I don't think any game uses different resolution mechanics for different classes (i.e. d20 for Wizards, dicepools for Druids, diceless for Fighters). On the other end every game (with classes) has classes with different abilities.
Is not it sightly the case with dnd who can have in the same team a truenamer a fighter and a typyverse wizard creating armies in one spell?
Sort of. The one thing I think is commendable about the "T3/T4" balance point is that the classes there are actually very mechanically distinct. The Beguiler's spells per day, the Psychic Warrior's power points, the Rogue's Sneak Attack, the Factotum's inspiration points, the Totemist's essentia, and the Binder's Vestiges play very differently, completely outside differences in function (i.e. a Binder with a vestige that granted charm monster would pay differently from a Totemist with a charm monster soulmeld).
But there are actually a bunch of classes in 3e which do use the same resource management mechanic. Regardless of how finely you slice things, the Dread Necromancer, Beguiler, and Warmage are all on the same page. I think most people would also say that the Druid and the Cleric are at least pretty similar (obviously, domains and Wild Shape exist). Maybe even count Spell Preparation as a whole as one mechanic.
How distinct are you asking for? On one end I don't think any game uses different resolution mechanics for different classes (i.e. d20 for Wizards, dicepools for Druids, diceless for Fighters). On the other end every game (with classes) has classes with different abilities.
That would be the sort of thing I'm looking for, although that's the most extreme version. There are games where different classes resolve different situations very differently. Even 2nd Edition D&D had alternate Theif skills, spells, fighters with different attacks, only fighters could specialize, so that's also that direction.
Sort of. The one thing I think is commendable about the "T3/T4" balance point is that the classes there are actually very mechanically distinct. The Beguiler's spells per day, the Psychic Warrior's power points, the Rogue's Sneak Attack, the Factotum's inspiration points, the Totemist's essentia, and the Binder's Vestiges play very differently, completely outside differences in function (i.e. a Binder with a vestige that granted charm monster would pay differently from a Totemist with a charm monster soulmeld).
But there are actually a bunch of classes in 3e which do use the same resource management mechanic. Regardless of how finely you slice things, the Dread Necromancer, Beguiler, and Warmage are all on the same page. I think most people would also say that the Druid and the Cleric are at least pretty similar (obviously, domains and Wild Shape exist). Maybe even count Spell Preparation as a whole as one mechanic.
I would count vancian spellcasters as sharing one mechanic.
That would be the sort of thing I'm looking for, although that's the most extreme version. There are games where different classes resolve different situations very differently. Even 2nd Edition D&D had alternate Theif skills, spells, fighters with different attacks, only fighters could specialize, so that's also that direction.
Maybe Shadowrun? A Rigger, or a Hacker, or a Mage has abilities that respond to different situations than the others.
I would count vancian spellcasters as sharing one mechanic.
I would have to count it as at least two. Spontaneous and prepared casters play differently, even if they're managing spell slots.
I also think it's possible to have additional mechanics under the umbrella of vancian casting. For example, encounter rather than daily limits. Preparing a specific selection of at-will powers is also similar.
Maybe Shadowrun? A Rigger, or a Hacker, or a Mage has abilities that respond to different situations than the others.
Shadowrun with hacking probably the closest I've seen.
I would have to count it as at least two. Spontaneous and prepared casters play differently, even if they're managing spell slots.
I also think it's possible to have additional mechanics under the umbrella of vancian casting. For example, encounter rather than daily limits. Preparing a specific selection of at-will powers is also similar.
Well those are minor distinctions the overall system is the same, I would say that those would be subdivisions within the major resolution mechanic, but not enough to counted as a completely different mechanic.
I would say gurps if there was classes for all those casting systems and so on and different mechanics you acquire with perks like true badass.
However there is no classes and so it is out of this thread.
I would say gurps if there was classes for all those casting systems and so on and different mechanics you acquire with perks like true badass.
However there is no classes and so it is out of this thread.
Well those kind of differences are certainly worth exploring. I would say those count, since they're systems you use to generate distinct archetypes.
Lacco
2016-02-20, 01:54 PM
I think I once read about homebrew for certain D&D ripoff, which had a specific type of wizard that cast spells via tarot cards.
This specific wizard could arrange his "pack of cards" each morning, and had to draw cards/"spells" one by one.
He could disregard a card but it cost him a round or so.
Did you have something like this in mind but for whole system? I don't think I have heard about a whole system like this, but I can easily imagine a system that includes a tarotmancer, who has a whole pack of cards and draws 4 each round, arranges them to a spell (e.g. a cross with the top card - 8 of hearts - means a fire as element and line-of-sight, the center card - queen of spades - means that this will be an attack spell with additional effect e.g. save-vs-death, the bottom card - king of diamonds - tells us that base damage will be d20 and the left & right arms - 4 of spades and 3 of diamonds - give us 4d20+3 damage - final spell is a firebolt with 4d20+3 damage, roll save-vs-death) and removes the 4 cards until the pack is shuffled.
However, this would be quite hard to construct :smallsmile:.
I think I once read about homebrew for certain D&D ripoff, which had a specific type of wizard that cast spells via tarot cards.
This specific wizard could arrange his "pack of cards" each morning, and had to draw cards/"spells" one by one.
He could disregard a card but it cost him a round or so.
Did you have something like this in mind but for whole system? I don't think I have heard about a whole system like this, but I can easily imagine a system that includes a tarotmancer, who has a whole pack of cards and draws 4 each round, arranges them to a spell (e.g. a cross with the top card - 8 of hearts - means a fire as element and line-of-sight, the center card - queen of spades - means that this will be an attack spell with additional effect e.g. save-vs-death, the bottom card - king of diamonds - tells us that base damage will be d20 and the left & right arms - 4 of spades and 3 of diamonds - give us 4d20+3 damage - final spell is a firebolt with 4d20+3 damage, roll save-vs-death) and removes the 4 cards until the pack is shuffled.
However, this would be quite hard to construct :smallsmile:.
Well that would be an option. The other option would be just to have differences in the way that say a Wizard or a Fighter deals with mechanical situations. Maybe they roll different dice, with different measure of success. Perhaps a wizard is steadier, but a fighter is more swingy, and likelier to have more dramatic successes. Or some-such. Just different mechanical ways of interacting with the world.
Arbane
2016-02-20, 08:49 PM
Reading the out of combat abilities thread, somebody mentioned that in some games for them the lack of distinct class mechanics made everything feel bland. I'm wondering if anybody knows of a game that's done the opposite, had completely disparate mechanics for each class or archetype. If not what do you folks think of that?
The older edition of Deadlands (not the Savage Worlds one) had different magic rules for Hucksters, Blessed, and Shamans.
It's not exactly class-based, but the 90s game TORG had radically different mechanics for magic, miracles, superpowers, and other odd abilities like Weird Science and martial arts.
ImNotTrevor
2016-02-21, 02:40 AM
The most difference I've seen between classes in a game I've played is Apocalypse World. Let me give some examples from the core book:
The Brainer gets abilities that involve mind probing and being creepy.
The Chopper gets few Moves (abilities, kinda) but instead gets control of a Biker Gang.
The Hardholder gets exactly 2 abilities and gets an entire town that they are the mayor of.
The Gunlugger is the best at killing things, plain and simple.
The Driver gets access to (potentially) a fleet of vehicles.
The Hocus has a cult that worships them.
And all of these are just how they come out-of-the-box, at level 1. And the ways that their individual moves operate make them all FEEL really different.
For instance, the Brainer has a move called Deep Brain Scan. To paraphrase the move,
Whenever you have time and intimacy with another person, (be it mutual, like a long embrace or one-way like they're strapped to a table) Roll +Weird. On a 7-9, ask 1. On a 10+, ask 3. (This move is followed by five questions to the tune of "What is your biggest regret?" And "What is your secret fear?")
The Gunlugger, in contrast, has moves like Not To Be $&@^ed With! That simply state that a Gunlugger counts as a small gang whenever they're in a battle, not a single person. (Mind you, it has to be a BATTLE, not intimate violence between only a few people.)
While they all revolve around the same basic mechanic, they each have a very distinct feel that makes it worth playing each one at least once.
The most difference I've seen between classes in a game I've played is Apocalypse World. Let me give some examples from the core book:
The Brainer gets abilities that involve mind probing and being creepy.
The Chopper gets few Moves (abilities, kinda) but instead gets control of a Biker Gang.
The Hardholder gets exactly 2 abilities and gets an entire town that they are the mayor of.
The Gunlugger is the best at killing things, plain and simple.
The Driver gets access to (potentially) a fleet of vehicles.
The Hocus has a cult that worships them.
And all of these are just how they come out-of-the-box, at level 1. And the ways that their individual moves operate make them all FEEL really different.
For instance, the Brainer has a move called Deep Brain Scan. To paraphrase the move,
Whenever you have time and intimacy with another person, (be it mutual, like a long embrace or one-way like they're strapped to a table) Roll +Weird. On a 7-9, ask 1. On a 10+, ask 3. (This move is followed by five questions to the tune of "What is your biggest regret?" And "What is your secret fear?")
The Gunlugger, in contrast, has moves like Not To Be $&@^ed With! That simply state that a Gunlugger counts as a small gang whenever they're in a battle, not a single person. (Mind you, it has to be a BATTLE, not intimate violence between only a few people.)
While they all revolve around the same basic mechanic, they each have a very distinct feel that makes it worth playing each one at least once.
That sounds like what I'm talking about, although I'm not sure about the implementation. It's got the same issue I've got with a lot of AW stuff. Really cool ideas, I just wind up disliking the implementation somewhat, which is mostly a personal preference thing.
The older edition of Deadlands (not the Savage Worlds one) had different magic rules for Hucksters, Blessed, and Shamans.
It's not exactly class-based, but the 90s game TORG had radically different mechanics for magic, miracles, superpowers, and other odd abilities like Weird Science and martial arts.
That sounds like what I'm talking about, can you go into the mechanics some? How were they different? Did it produce good or bad things in the game?
Arbane
2016-02-21, 10:55 PM
That sounds like what I'm talking about, can you go into the mechanics some? How were they different? Did it produce good or bad things in the game?
Keep in mind it's been a long time since I looked at any of those, you'd be better off reading the rules.
Deadlands:
Hucksters are magicians who get their powers by, essential, tricking demons into helping them. They do this via card games in the game, and the player powers their spells by picking playing cards and making a poker hand out of them. The more powerful, the more cards they draw - but if you draw a joker, something goes badly wrong. So more power = more risk.
Blessed can call upon a Higher Power for various miraculous effects (healing and such, mainly), but they have to stick to a fairly strict code of conduct. (Depending on faith, no smokin', no cussin', no drinkin', etc...) I _think_ their powers are relatively safe, otherwise - no chance of backfiring, unlike hucksters or mad scientists.
Shamans get power from spirits, but it's an even trade, to keep the spirits happy, they have to make sacrifices, up to self-mutiliation. Dice rolling is involved.
Mad Scientists have their own thing, to. But I don't remember any details.
TORG: The game was about other dimensions invading our world, and imposing their own realities on it, so in different places, magic/miracles/high tech might or might not work.
Magic: You had to learn spells, and learn skills to use them. It's been a long time, I forget the details, but I do remember there was a flow-chart to explain spell design.
There was also a separate thing called 'Occultism' which let you do magic stuff by, essentially, setting up a bunch of hoops and jumping through them, with the end result if you got through all the steps being something supernatural. (For an example: To make a Frankenstein's monster, you need to scribble down notes, use the notes to assemble a chemical bath, rob graves for body parts to stitch together, then wait for a lightning storm....) The more steps and the more risk of failure, the stronger the result. I think it had its own skill.
Miracles: You had to have a Faith (specific religion) skill, and a 'Focus' skill as well. Miracles were usually things that were thematic for that religion. (Faith (Atheism) let you shut down other miracle-workers if you rolled well enough. Having extra congregants to pray with made it more likely to work.
Keep in mind it's been a long time since I looked at any of those, you'd be better off reading the rules.
Fair enough, it may not be easy to get the rules though simply for this, although those are both on the lists of things I want to check out at some point. I do appreciate the summary though!
Deadlands:
Hucksters are magicians who get their powers by, essential, tricking demons into helping them. They do this via card games in the game, and the player powers their spells by picking playing cards and making a poker hand out of them. The more powerful, the more cards they draw - but if you draw a joker, something goes badly wrong. So more power = more risk.
That's definitely quite nifty. Does the Jokey invalidate the success or is it a sort of complication on the success?
Blessed can call upon a Higher Power for various miraculous effects (healing and such, mainly), but they have to stick to a fairly strict code of conduct. (Depending on faith, no smokin', no cussin', no drinkin', etc...) I _think_ their powers are relatively safe, otherwise - no chance of backfiring, unlike hucksters or mad scientists.
Shamans get power from spirits, but it's an even trade, to keep the spirits happy, they have to make sacrifices, up to self-mutiliation. Dice rolling is involved.
Mad Scientists have their own thing, to. But I don't remember any details.
TORG: The game was about other dimensions invading our world, and imposing their own realities on it, so in different places, magic/miracles/high tech might or might not work.
Magic: You had to learn spells, and learn skills to use them. It's been a long time, I forget the details, but I do remember there was a flow-chart to explain spell design.
There was also a separate thing called 'Occultism' which let you do magic stuff by, essentially, setting up a bunch of hoops and jumping through them, with the end result if you got through all the steps being something supernatural. (For an example: To make a Frankenstein's monster, you need to scribble down notes, use the notes to assemble a chemical bath, rob graves for body parts to stitch together, then wait for a lightning storm....) The more steps and the more risk of failure, the stronger the result. I think it had its own skill.
Miracles: You had to have a Faith (specific religion) skill, and a 'Focus' skill as well. Miracles were usually things that were thematic for that religion. (Faith (Atheism) let you shut down other miracle-workers if you rolled well enough. Having extra congregants to pray with made it more likely to work.
Also awesome, the Miracles system is like something I'm loving.
Khedrac
2016-02-22, 12:27 PM
I think Avalon Hill (Chaosium) RuneQuest 3 came close.
There were three main magic systems (well there were more, but there were only rules for 3 of them):
Divine Magic
Spirit Magic
Sorcery
Shamans worked very differently from full Priests, but initiates (trainee divine casters) and apprentice Shaman worked pretty much identically, so those two archetypes did link quite significantly.
Sorcerers however, used a completely different system for their magic, totally unrelated to divine and spirit magic.
(OK there were a few cults that accepted the use of sorcery, but then the character had to master two unrelated systems of magic.)
CharonsHelper
2016-02-22, 12:56 PM
So - in D&D would the martials, vancian casters, and psionics all be extreme enough asymmetry?
Really - it sounds like you're talking about an asymmetry spectrum from very slight asymmetry to very hard rather than a yes/no.
I've seen games with extreme asymmetry, but if you go too far it tends to work better in a PvP situation rather than a co-op one such as most RPGs. (ex: a game like Descent where most players have somewhat soft asymmetry with their characters, and the players all have extreme asymmetry with the Overlord)
So - in D&D would the martials, vancian casters, and psionics all be extreme enough asymmetry?
I would say that Martials and Casters in D&D would be around that degree. Psionics and Vancian are pretty close in terms of how they handle things.
Really - it sounds like you're talking about an asymmetry spectrum from very slight asymmetry to very hard rather than a yes/no.
I've seen games with extreme asymmetry, but if you go too far it tends to work better in a PvP situation rather than a co-op one such as most RPGs. (ex: a game like Descent where most players have somewhat soft asymmetry with their characters, and the players all have extreme asymmetry with the Overlord)
Why would you say that extreme asymmetry works better for PvP than a co-op scenario? Out of curiosity. It seems that the opposite would be true, at least to me.
themaque
2016-02-22, 02:02 PM
Deadlands perhaps? Hucksters, Shammans, Blessed, Kung Fu and Mad Science where most of the "weird" archetypes and most played decently differently each with their own unique mechanics.
RIFTS is well known for being unbalanced and having a huge swath of anything and everything, but that was designed around a Kitchen Sink mindset and many had similar mechanics.
EDIT: Oops already mentioned. So to answer some questions.
JOKERS & Hucksters: they can be used for wild cards on casting so your spell still might go off, but since it activates a backlash you've just invited a demon into your noggin.
MAD SCIENCE: You come up with an idea. ANYTHIGN really. come up with a crazy theory about how and why your stuff should work. The closer to real world mechanics of the time it is, the easier it is to make.
Better Buggy: Easy
Gattling Pistol: Harder
Time Vortex : Really really hard.
You made a science roll then draw cards again. You get a good enough hand and you can have blueprints and start making your device. Problem is... you start to go mad... Mad... MAD! as you are dealing with ghost rock. (think hatters dealing with mercury except more so) of course that's the only reason. nothing supernatural about ghost rock. no sir ree bob.
They upgraded a few things in the 2nd printing. All your "Weird" stuff had 1 skill. Hucksters just learned Hex-slinging not a skill per spell.
Blessed could swap out a spell for one super magic power that's always on. Such as always being able to find food no matter what because the good lord is watching out for you.
My favorite was one that people always had an increased chance of missing you. Tie you down to a chair with a gun to your HEAD and instead of being an auto-hit they STILL had to roll. If they somehow miss? Gun jams or something equally amazing.
As I said, they had Hong Kong Kung Fu, they added Voodoo, the Men in Black, Texas Rangers, Steampunk Robots.
It is and was a wild system. The most resent rules set uses their Savage Worlds rules, which I believe was an evolution of the original DEADLANDS rules. but they still try to make everyone feel unique with their own twists of the base rules.
CharonsHelper
2016-02-22, 02:24 PM
Why would you say that extreme asymmetry works better for PvP than a co-op scenario? Out of curiosity. It seems that the opposite would be true, at least to me.
I think that soft asymmetry up to reasonably hard is easier in co-op, but extreme is easier in PvP.
The reason is where it's easier to balance them.
For co-op, if the asymmetry is middling, so long as it's enough that the players are doing different things, the balance doesn't have to be perfect for everyone to contribute, especially if no one steps on anyone's toes. (To stick to D&D examples - wizards & fighters work well with this at low-mid levels, but at high levels the wizard can replace the fighter with summons & polymorph and do his job better - making the fighter unneeded.) However, too extreme of asymmetry (significantly more than wizard/fighter) and it becomes difficult to even figure out where the two players' abilities intersect.
For PvP, the play-testing of hard asymmetry becomes far easier. Since the asymmetry doesn't work together, you don't need to worry about when they step on each-others toes in abilities and make each-other feel unnecessary. You simply make sure that each side has close to the same chance of victory. You can even intentionally have imbalance between the specific players of the different sides so long as the total game balance is solid. The old Dark Age of Camelot did that subtly (the game did not have asymmetry more than any other MMO - just using it as an example of imbalance between players but balance between sides) one faction had slightly better warrior classes and inferior casters, and another had slightly better casters and inferior warriors. The warrior heavy faction still needed their casters to function, and the caster faction needed tanks for their groups/armies to work, but the balance between the individual players of the two sides was imbalanced intentionally.
To come back to Descent - I have no idea how you would balance one player who controlled a single 'hero' and another player who can control & replace multiple units across the battlefield in a co-op scenario. Such a game would likely be a hot mess. But it works pretty well for PvP.
I think that soft asymmetry up to reasonably hard is easier in co-op, but extreme is easier in PvP.
The reason is where it's easier to balance them.
For co-op, if the asymmetry is middling, so long as it's enough that the players are doing different things, the balance doesn't have to be perfect for everyone to contribute, especially if no one steps on anyone's toes. (To stick to D&D examples - wizards & fighters work well with this at low-mid levels, but at high levels the wizard can replace the fighter with summons & polymorph and do his job better - making the fighter unneeded.) However, too extreme of asymmetry (significantly more than wizard/fighter) and it becomes difficult to even figure out where the two players' abilities intersect.
For PvP, the play-testing of hard asymmetry becomes far easier. Since the asymmetry doesn't work together, you don't need to worry about when they step on each-others toes in abilities and make each-other feel unnecessary. You simply make sure that each side has close to the same chance of victory. You can even intentionally have imbalance between the specific players of the different sides so long as the total game balance is solid. The old Dark Age of Camelot did that subtly (the game did not have asymmetry more than any other MMO - just using it as an example of imbalance between players but balance between sides) one faction had slightly better warrior classes and inferior casters, and another had slightly better casters and inferior warriors. The warrior heavy faction still needed their casters to function, and the caster faction needed tanks for their groups/armies to work, but the balance between the individual players of the two sides was imbalanced intentionally.
To come back to Descent - I have no idea how you would balance one player who controlled a single 'hero' and another player who can control & replace multiple units across the battlefield in a co-op scenario. Such a game would likely be a hot mess. But it works pretty well for PvP.
I think you're conflating two related but distinct issues. It's possible to have classes work very differently but have their roles not intersect. I think the reason why 3.5's asymmetry is seen as such a problem is that the roles intersect. What I'm discussing is asymmetry in terms of operations, rather than asymmetry in terms of capabilities.
CharonsHelper
2016-02-22, 03:18 PM
I think you're conflating two related but distinct issues. It's possible to have classes work very differently but have their roles not intersect. I think the reason why 3.5's asymmetry is seen as such a problem is that the roles intersect. What I'm discussing is asymmetry in terms of operations, rather than asymmetry in terms of capabilities.
See - now I think I'm more confused. I agree that in 3.5 the casters step on martial toes at higher levels, and it's a problem - I think I even mentioned it above. I'm still a bit confused on what you mean by 'extreme' asymmetry.
Truly extreme asymmetry would have the characters using entirely different systems of play. Even wizards and fighters both control a single character, 'lose' when they run out of HP, and get the same number of actions each turn, though they have a pretty solid asymmetry. In Descent, the two sides have none of those things in common - hence my using it as an example of even harder or more 'extreme' asymmetry.
See - now I think I'm more confused. I agree that in 3.5 the casters step on martial toes at higher levels, and it's a problem - I think I even mentioned it above. I'm still a bit confused on what you mean by 'extreme' asymmetry.
Truly extreme asymmetry would have the characters using entirely different systems of play. Even wizards and fighters both control a single character, 'lose' when they run out of HP, and get the same number of actions each turn, though they have a pretty solid asymmetry. In Descent, the two sides have none of those things in common - hence my using it as an example of even harder or more 'extreme' asymmetry.
Descent probably would qualify. I would say that fighters and wizards are example of fairly extreme asymmetry. Wizards cast spells, that have no chance of failure, fighters have a 5% chance of failing every attack (or greater). Fighters have no resource management, Wizards have resource management. It's a pretty disparate system. Admittedly it could be more disparate. That would be the lowest level of asymmetry I would probably count as being extreme. But I think that the asymmetry isn't necessarily equivalent to balance issues. Mathematically you could still have similar odds of success with different means, the resource to no resource is a big problem, since Wizards are given huge abilities to counterbalance their resources, which in 3.5 winds up being not a huge deal, and therefore winds up being not a good solution. There are more examples of disparate class mechanics the further in 3.5 you get. Although those aren't necessarily as disparate as they could get.
Areas where you could probably increase lack of symmetry - different experience gains could be interesting. Different combat mechanics could be interesting. Mostly I'm just looking for differences in the way that different classes play.
CharonsHelper
2016-02-22, 03:44 PM
But I think that the asymmetry isn't necessarily equivalent to balance issues.
I totally agree that they aren't equivalent. However, balance needs to be a factor in any asymmetrical decisions from a design perspective.
Symmetry is the easiest way to balance. If you make a game symmetrical between all players, it'll inherently be balanced even if the meta of the game shifts in ways that you didn't anticipate at all. (As an extreme example - volleyball was designed at a YMCA to be a relaxed game so that people on lunch break wouldn't get sweaty. The game's creator pretty obviously didn't expect players to spike the ball.)
The more asymmetry which you add to a game, the more difficult balance becomes. You can go with soft asymmetry in which you can generally math the balance to be pretty darned close. But frankly - even a soft asymmetry is pretty dull in a co-op game. (look at early 4e)
The more asymmetry you have, the more difficult a game becomes to balance. That's why I think wizard/fighter is about the most extreme asymmetry which I think could work well in a co-op RPG. Going much further should probably be left to PvP games. I'd love to be proven wrong on that front, as I find asymmetry to make games more interesting (all other things being equal) - I just think that co-op balance makes there be a limit to the asymmetry which can be viable.
I totally agree that they aren't equivalent. However, balance needs to be a factor in any asymmetrical decisions from a design perspective.
I think balance is often over-valued in terms of design, particularly in recent times, and particularly on this forum.
Symmetry is the easiest way to balance. If you make a game symmetrical between all players, it'll inherently be balanced even if the meta of the game shifts in ways that you didn't anticipate at all. (As an extreme example - volleyball was designed at a YMCA to be a relaxed game so that people on lunch break wouldn't get sweaty. The game's creator pretty obviously didn't expect players to spike the ball.)
But where balance is most critical would be in PvP, volleyball or sporting events have a strong need for balance because the players are directly competing against one another. In a co-op game balance becomes significantly less substantive unless you have issues where one player can completely invalidate another. You can have different contributions particular those in different roles, without having balance be as significant. If the players are in direct conflict than balance is much more important.
The more asymmetry which you add to a game, the more difficult balance becomes. You can go with soft asymmetry in which you can generally math the balance to be pretty darned close. But frankly - even a soft asymmetry is pretty dull in a co-op game. (look at early 4e)
Well the ideal would be to have roles be different and interesting, but to have the classes not directly interfered.
The more asymmetry you have, the more difficult a game becomes to balance. That's why I think wizard/fighter is about the most extreme asymmetry which I think could work well in a co-op RPG. Going much further should probably be left to PvP games. I'd love to be proven wrong on that front, as I find asymmetry to make games more interesting (all other things being equal) - I just think that co-op balance makes there be a limit to the asymmetry which can be viable.
With all due respect, I think you're backwards on this. In PvP balance is critical, because that's the thing that keeps your characters effectively evenly matched.
Segev
2016-02-22, 04:21 PM
Anima: Beyond Fantasy seems to have entirely different subsystems for every single class, including at least a half-dozen different "magic" systems (from ki, to spells, to psionics, to a few others).
CharonsHelper
2016-02-22, 04:29 PM
With all due respect, I think you're backwards on this. In PvP balance is critical, because that's the thing that keeps your characters effectively evenly matched.
I agree again. (I'm bad at explaining things.)
You have much more balance leeway in co-op, but you still should them be ballpark, especially if there's a chance of them stepping on each-others' toes.
However, with extreme co-op (more than wizard/fighter) it becomes difficult to even figure out whether or not they are invalidating one-another.
PvP makes it so that balance needs to be much tighter. However, creating balance in PvP is MUCH easier. It's because the sides as a whole need to be balanced rather than any aspects within their mechanics, and it's easier to figure out opposed balance with math. Plus - the play-testing is far more conclusive. If faction A wins 72% of the time, then nerf faction A. Much more clear-cut
Plus, you can have rock-scissors-paper within each faction so that even if one faction is a bit more potent, the others can deal with them with strategy/meta etc.
Segev
2016-02-22, 04:35 PM
Take the MechMania of...many years ago, now. The contest in MechMania is for your three-person team to code up, using a game they've constructed for this contest, an AI that beats all comers at that game in a double-elimination tournament.
The game the one year I participated was a fantasy one, with fighters, archers, and mages. Fighters were tough enough to take a peripheral blast from a mage-nuke and keep going, so they'd run right up and murder mages in the face. Mages couldn't outrun them. Mages could nuke, and nothing survived a point-blank blast, so archers (slower than fighters, and prone to standing still and shooting under a lot of AI paradigms) were easy prey for the mages. Archers could kill a fighter who ran at them as fast as he could from full to dead before he got more than a hit off.
This led to some interesting rock-paper-scissor design.
JBPuffin
2016-02-22, 08:06 PM
I'm not sure of any other examples, but I think that it'd be fun to build a game that does this intentionally. Something to do with time shenanigans...
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.