BONUSES VERSUS SETBACKS

Posts

Pages: first 12 next last
Craze
why would i heal when i could equip a morningstar
15150
So, I think about game design a lot, and sometimes I focus on game design theory. Woah.

I'd like to discuss how you guys feel about whether to provide bonuses only or use setbacks to balance bigger bonuses. While there are, of course, minor exceptions, I believe that this isn't an "use both when necessary Craze you VX-propagating freak." You either design a game with a bonus-oriented viewpoint or a setback-oriented viewpoint.

Here's what I mean:
Bonuses only: "When you pick the Rogue class for your hero, they get +2 bonuses to Dexterity and Cunning."
Setbacks: "When you pick the Rogue class for your hero, they get +4 Dexterity, +2 Cunning, and -2 Constitution."

Bonuses only: "Swords raise your both your accuracy and damage. Axes just raise damage greatly."
Setbacks: "Swords raise your damage. Axes lower your accuracy but greatly raise damage."

Bonuses only: "Berserk raises the character's attack speed and damage."
Setbacks: "Berserk makes the character uncontrollable but greatly raises attack speed and damage."

Examples of bonus-oriented games are Dungeons & Dragons 4e and Dragon Age. Most jRPGs are setback-oriented.

***


I'm pro-bonuses, but I think that either aspect can work better for different types of games. For example, roguelikes benefit greatly from setback-oriented thinking - you really have to plan out your build. It also works for equipment-heavy games since it provides more variety/strategy. I'm using setback theory for my current project.

Diablocide X, however, and most of my works as a whole in the future will be bonus-oriented. I think it's simply more approachable and easy to understand. You know what you want, you get it, you throw it on your dude. It works very well for games that have a lot of minutae - a tactics game, for example, or Diablocide X (since you equip/control fourteen characters... yeah).

Thoughts?

I don't think the design philosophy has to be quite that black and white, but for the sake of argument - I would call Setbacks preferable.

I'll illustrate with another example:

Bonuses only: The Air Elementalist class innately resists Air element.
Setbacks: The Air Elementalist class innately resists Air element, and has an innate weakness to Earth element.

The difference here is the latter gives you more options to consider. A monster's elemental attack can now do neutral, weakened or strengthened damage, whereas in the bonuses model only the first two would apply. Going by Craze-examples, equipment/classes can lower your stats as opposed to just raising them in a setback-based model, which gives you one more thing to take into account. There is a tradeoff for the great power of Berserk, which makes you ask "is this worth it?" rather than just be a no-brainer buff spell.

Summary: Setback-model makes the game more complex but ultimately often enrichens the experience.
I don't think you need to be pro either, just go with what works for the situation at hand. With equipment it's usually best to use bonuses only with maybe a few exceptions. With classes I think you will need the setbacks though.

Imagine the standard frail offensive mage. Instead of giving the mage class a penalty to HP, you could also give every other class a bonus. However, the end result is the same except you're making it less intuitive for the player. With bonuses and setbacks the player will know that 70% HP means the character is frail, but if you only have bonuses the player first has to figure out if, say 120%, is good or bad.

I suppose I usually prefer bonuses though. I design the majority of spells and equipment to only have bonuses.
Setbacks expand your (the designer) options immensely. They also include a variety of new strategies for players, and allow more representation (if those options are used) between the character and his (or her) avatar.

I strongly disagree that D&D (I've only played up to 3 though!) is bonus oriented, as min/maxing is a pretty common tool, which is mostly just a player controlled setback. I would also say that most jRPGs are bonus-oriented, as well, since almost all equipment in traditional jRPGs offers only bonuses. There is the occasional elemental plate or weapon, but for the most part you just find whichever sword does the most damage and stick to using that one, whereas in D&D the variety of weapons and proficiencies means that you stick with the weapon(s) that work best for that character, which might not always be the highest, stat-wise (as is the case with heavy armour, for instance!).

edit: I will probably expand more later but now I am late for work eeee
Craze
why would i heal when i could equip a morningstar
15150
I said D&D 4e very specifically. 4e is a complete and utter overhaul of the system.
It depends on how you're implementing it.

For example, in Fallout 3, you might be fine with sacrificing Endurance in favour of Strength. However, when it comes to the Perks system in that game, it would probably be annoying if levelling up offered you perks with setbacks, rather than perks that purely consisted of bonuses.
post=139917
It depends on how you're implementing it.

For example, in Fallout 3, you might be fine with sacrificing Endurance in favour of Strength. However, when it comes to the Perks system in that game, it would probably be annoying if levelling up offered you perks with setbacks, rather than perks that purely consisted of bonuses.


Yeah, but Fallout 2 had "traits" and "perks". Traits had setbacks built in (for example: one trait doubled how much benefit you got from the drugs scattered across the world but also had twice the chance of becoming an addict; another did just the opposite) and perks were all good. Traits let you customize your character to play how you wanted from the get go, and perks were added bonuses for leveling up (and were sometimes the best part of levelling up!). The traits didn't let you overpower your character, but they did let you focus them to play a very specific way.

And yeah, Craze, that's why I pointed out I'd only played up to 3, since I figured 4e changed things around dramatically if what you were saying was true.
I like it when you mix the two.

Depending on certain mechanics, some benefit from one more than the other. I am going to not name an RPG but let's just say action/fps games usually have a mix of both. A shotgun sacrifices range for power, while a sniper rifle sacrifices rate of fire and for range and power (okay this is actually a setback). A game like uh...let's say BioShock, mixes the two elements together. Each weapon has a bonus/setback, but they are also upgradeable. Your crossbow just starts off as a regular long range weapon with a slow rate of fire, but investing in it will turn it into a crossbow that has a 4x zoom and EXPLODES enemies on impact.

I guess you could say Mass Effect 2 is both as well, but it's obviously more bonus oriented. There is one setback and that's the class you pick, but after that it's just bonus bonus bonus.

Actually, speaking of ME2, the good/evil system is another example of mixing bonuses and setbacks together.

edit: I don't even know if that qualifies?? I am...not good at this discussion.
Craze
why would i heal when i could equip a morningstar
15150
I'm talking mostly in more concrete terms (than, say, "getting karma points unlocks the dialogue option that lets me go to an area with a man who will trade me a gun for my daughter"), but you could still use it as an example.

Recent Bioware games have a high tendency toward bonus-oriented thinking overall, though.
I'm just going to chip in here (more later) now and say that I like setbacks for the simple reason that it's fun to challenge myself to see how I can break and exceed limitations that the game sets for me. I suppose a good example of both systems is Final Fantasy 12 (bonuses) and Final Fantasy V/Tactics (setbacks). FFV/FFT ranks among my favorite games for the gameplay (and FFT job and gameplay discussion never, ever seems to die, even ten years and many, many hacks later).

It's just so much more interesting working around limitations and mixing and matching shit around to sneak around setbacks than gaining stress free power in a linear fashion all the way until the end.
LouisCyphre
can't make a bad game if you don't finish any games
4523
I'd like to point that Pokes are very, very set-back oriented. "What's that? You want to use a 120+ power move? Well, you're going to have to either deal with either shaky accuracy, recoil damage, self-debuffs, or charge-up turns to do that."

Of course, you can Sunny Day your Solarbeam, or Rock Head that Double-Edge, or even Spore before a Focus Punch, but the fact remains that you either have to live with or take steps to avert the setbacks of a great number of highly-useful moves, from Substitute to Thunder to Draco Meteor.
what about EXPLOSION

because there is basically no setback if you bring â–"9 revives
LouisCyphre
can't make a bad game if you don't finish any games
4523
Explosion is the greatest "fuck you" move in the franchise.
Except when it gets a Ghost type switched on it and then the opponent has every right to be the world's smuggest gloater. Setbacks !!
ROLLOUT is for special (ghostly) occasions
Craze
why would i heal when i could equip a morningstar
15150
Well, let's make this discussion more specific, since it seemed to die down: do you think that bonuses-only is easier for players? For developers? How so?

Additionally, are there ways to make bonuses-only as "deep" as setbacks-oriented strategy?
Max McGee
with sorrow down past the fence
9159
This is such a good topic.

I think about this shit CONSTANTLY.

I am too tired to make a really good post right now, I will try to chime in later with something more...coherent? But let me just ramble.

For now:
I think in general my games use a lot of setbacks (which might more properly be called trade-offs) and that accounts for some of their more poorly received aspects. For instance, a player might not notice that he has chosen/selected a low-accuracy, high damage skill or weapon, and, if he misses the first three times, mistakenly believe that the skill is worthless because it never hits and, if he hits the first three times, believe the skill is overpowered because of how much damage it does. This ties into a greater problem which is the problem of probability and random chance. (My games tend to be markedly less deterministic in their programming than most jRPGs. In To Arms!, like in D&D, whether or not you will hit in combat is just as much of an issue as how much damage you will do.)

Anyway, a good example of what we are talking about is...in every one of my games since 2005 (and maybe earlier) armor has reduced Agility by a factor relative to how heavy the armor is. For instance, light armor might reduce Agility by one quarter of the Defense bonus (or not at all), medium armor might reduce Agility by one half of the Defense bonus (or by one quarter), and heavy armor might subtract the full Defense bonus from Agility (or one half).

In Starseed: Blood Machine, Celestial Configurations are bonus oriented while Masonic Configurations are tradeoff oriented. Celestials get no penalties; Masonics get bigger bonuses, offset by small penalties.
As defined, I prefer the setback method as opposed to ever-greater bonuses. I feel like it's more intuitive (heavy armor should have an agility penalty) and it fosters a deeper level of strategy (i.e. if a player wants to be magic user at the expensive of HP and defense, he'll have to figure out a way to deal with physical attacks).

I feel like bonus and setback oriented games are equal in difficulty for the developer to balance, but I think setbacks are just more accessible for the player.

But more importantly, these two aren't mutually exclusive. Nothing makes a regen accessory even more awesome when all the player has been able to find up to that point was a regen ring that also inflicts slow status.
Craze
why would i heal when i could equip a morningstar
15150
post=140086
But more importantly, these two aren't mutually exclusive. Nothing makes a regen accessory even more awesome when all the player has been able to find up to that point was a regen ring that also inflicts slow status.


Of course they're not mutually exclusive, but (well-designed) games tend to be bonus- or setback-oriented as a whole.
post=140087
post=140086
But more importantly, these two aren't mutually exclusive. Nothing makes a regen accessory even more awesome when all the player has been able to find up to that point was a regen ring that also inflicts slow status.
Of course they're not mutually exclusive, but (well-designed) games tend to be bonus- or setback-oriented as a whole.


Hmm, how does that equate, though? Does that mean a setback oriented game never ever just hands you some stress free, no strings attached power?
Pages: first 12 next last