Game Design And Variable Costs
Game Design and Variable Costs
This is intended to be a short essay looking at something that’s an issue in game design, specifically character creation in games. More specifically, how allocating resources during character creation can be a tricky process, and a trickier one when there are multiple resource pools that can be used for similar things, or where one kind of resource can be converted into others.
What ‘resource pools’ are isn’t always obvious. Games such as the Hero System are straightforward in this regard-- a character built with a pool of points that are spent to acquire all of the capabilities of that character, their attributes, skills, equipment, whatever other resources they have available. But other systems that allow choices to be made in character creation are, in effect, creating ‘resource pools’ of a different kind, some obvious, some less so.
For one example, the Storyteller System has characters decide how to allocate different pools of ‘dots’ to a wide range of characteristics-- and make decisions on which group of sub-characteristics receives more dots to allocate, so a character will decide to put a larger pool of dots into mental, physical or social attributes, and then spend those dots within each of those categories, and make similar choices for different categories of skills, and for a wide range of other resource types; GURPS characters, in turn, are built almost entirely of one pool of points, except that their equipment is purchased with money, instead-- and they can convert character points into money to have more to spend on equipment. Many game systems will have pools of points for different categories in a simpler approach-- so many points for attributes, so many for skills, so many for equipment.
But other costs still exist even in systems that don’t directly provide pools of points to be spread around! In Dungeons and Dragons 5e, aside from using one of several systems for allocating attributes, a very granular resource is spent on choosing an ancestry, another on a class, and later, another on a subclass. Should we view these in the same way? I think we should; this is especially important when designing ancestries, classes and subclasses, if we want to have any pretense of balance among different types of characters. (This is why I wrote extensive essays elsewhere on subclasses in D&D; class/subclass features *are a resource pool* and extremely vulnerable to balance issues.) In much the same way, a FATE character has a limited pool of Stunts and Aspects, and careful decisions should be made about how to spend them to create a character that can do what is desired.
But a pitfall of system design, and the heart of this essay, is about the difficulty of having different resource pools that can be used for similar results, either by being transformed into each other, or by being used for the same purpose. More specifically, I’m identifying pitfalls that I and others have seen in character design in some games. (I’m sorry that I will be calling out a number of specific games, including, no doubt, some that any readers I somehow get will love dearly, for what I see as weaknesses in game design, but I’m not trying to hurt anything or anyone-- just point out things that could perhaps be avoided or handled better.)
One area that this can happen is converting resource pools to other purposes. For example, in GURPS, character points can be used to buy such things as natural weapons or even superpowers-- but they can also be spent to buy such things as the Wealth advantage, which allows the character to then spend an expanded pool of money on a wide range of things, some of which *will duplicate the effects of powers.* For an easy example of this, we’ll look at GURPS Powers 4e; we see here, using an example the gamebook thoughtfully provides, that we can create a pistol that duplicates the characteristics of a TL7 Auto Pistol for 22 points… but said pistol in the character book costs $350, which is a tiny fraction of the basic money pool of a TL7 character. Yes, it’s not the same thing-- buying it as a power implies that it’s innate and cannot be removed-- but spending 22 points out of the 100-250 character points a common GURPS character might have to start with for something that they could spend 0 points for is a bit extreme; it gets more so if the characters are in a game where being unable to use their weapons in a situation where they would want to (because of theft or local laws, for example) simply doesn’t come up at all, and such games are not at all uncommon.
The original Storyteller System had a different, if related issue-- during character creation, purchasing various characteristics of almost any kind had a linear cost, but spending experience points, later, had a cost that scaled up with the current value of that characteristic sharply, while purchasing a low level of a new characteristic was much cheaper, thus letting characters who purchased high levels of a few characteristics during creation but rounding themselves out with experience later having higher and more numerous characteristics than ones who instead made broadly-based characters with low levels in a wide range of abilities, and then tried to raise them later with experience. Luckily, the later versions of the Storyteller system have been moving away from this problem, but it’s a pitfall to avoid when resources can be converted into each other, especially if character advancement *changes* how various abilities are purchased.
(In this essay, I won’t be touching on another, related issue-- point-buy systems that simply give better results per point to specific purchases. That’s highly system-specific, but always an issue to watch out for! For examples, see any discussion of how to make an efficient Hero system character.)
I think, though, where I see this issue come up most commonly is in situations where highly-granular abilities can be used for the same purpose as other abilities purchased with other resource pools. The (probably obscure) Chronicles of the Void had this issue for some characters-- a Human Varigator or Aqasoo Nova might spend one of their precious few class abilities on the ability to make ranged psionic attacks via energy manipulation or telekinesis. But that Lauxnaut Sharpshooter is instead using a gun they got as starting equipment to do comparable damage, and is using their class ability to ignore the cover of their designated target! In much the same way, I often see, for example, third-party D&D subclasses that let characters make unarmed attacks and have unarmored defenses comparable to those of characters who fight with weapons, and that sounds good until you realize that other subclasses can have the same AC, dish out just as much damage, but *still have all of their class features available for other things.* Similarly, some class features let a character create equipment that’s just as good as regular equipment, and that’s just not much of a feature at all.
This is sometimes encountered more broadly, as well-- “Defeating enemies” is a desired result in many games. Different resource pools, via powers, equipment, spells, class features, ancestry features, or anything else might contribute to this result; they may do so by inflicting damage, hindering enemies, or outright knocking them out of the fight without engaging with other subsystems, and unfortunately, sometimes, different choices made-- different prices paid-- produce dramatically different results. I’ve seen it in theory, but I’ve also seen it in actual play, time and time again.
And I think game designers need to look carefully at their systems to ensure that this doesn’t sink their designs.
But Josh, why are you so worried about game balance? Does it really matter? Well, yes, I think it does. It can be frustrating for a player to realize that the choices that they made for whatever reason have rendered their character irrelevant in a situation. People don’t like, as a general rule, feeling helpless. Furthermore, it makes creating a balance for an enjoyable game harder when the GM has to adjust challenges for a group of players with highly disparate abilities, and if the GM attempts to balance things by creating THIS challenge for THAT character, but THIS GREATER challenge for THAT OTHER character, a simple change in positioning, for example, can destroy the illusion of everyone contributing in an instant.
Okay, but Josh, about that powers vs gear thing-- isn’t it really important that a character can get that result without relying on equipment that can be broken or taken away? Hey, I’ll grant that this can be very different in different games. In an intrigue game, say, or an espionage one, the ability to be apparently unarmed but still able to strike down enemies might be a game-changer! But in my own experience, this is a *very* rare circumstance-- and it’s one that is often not even considered in game design in other ways. As a quick example, let’s look at D&D again. A given warlock can fire an Eldritch Blast for damage that is (very) roughly equivalent to what a skilled archer can inflict; this is broadly considered to be balanced, and if we compare warlocks with Hex to rangers with Hunter’s Mark, we see that, for better or worse, the designers had those in mind as (again very roughly) balanced choices. But the warlock doesn’t need a weapon at all-- they’re casting a spell, one that doesn’t even have a material component, while that ranger not only needs a weapon, they need a really big one like a longbow or heavy crossbow to match the warlock’s damage! But nobody really worries about that part of it, do they? Discussions of class balance cover things like access to high-level spells, attacks per round, damage per round, and so on. Characters being denied their gear is simply not a factor in most modern games; it’s just not an issue for most characters.
What does all of this mean? Well, it’s something to work on when a game designer creates something. Look at what the different costs actually are; decide if the balance issues are a serious problem. And think about how it all comes together. And playtest. Possibly a lot.
More Posts from Unkajosh and Others
We were talking about food, weren't we?
I could tell you about places I've eaten. I'm not wealthy at all, but I've still had some fairly amazing food in a place or two.
But the thing is, I'm a restaurant guy. I work in a pizza place right now; we're a chain, and while our food is pretty darned good, that's not what I'm going to talk about, either. Exactly.
Because I don't have children. I have the kids who work for us. And I take care of them. (Okay, not all of them. The white supremacist that I fired, not so much.)
So when the kids have been good, and time allows, I feed them something special, something they can't just get off the menu-- but something that I can make with only the ingredients that I have on hand.
Let's look at a typical example.
I start with a crust. What kind of crust? I'll use any of them; our signature crust is a Detroit-style deep dish, which has a fluffier crust (lower-protein flour, closer to AP Flour than the bread flour that pizza dough normally uses), but I'm a past master at hand-tossed dough, and we have a very tasty thin, cracker crust as well. (The key to hand-tossed dough is to not use the dough press they provide, nor the docker they provide, but hand-toss it as God intended. But it's a skill that takes a while to master, so we have the press for the sake of new hires.)
Imagine the one you like best.
I don't just start there, though. There really ought to be veggies. My kids need to eat their veggies! But the default technique is fresh raw chopped veggies put on the pizza; they don't really cook very much due to their high internal water content (and actually make the top of the pizza cook less; pizzas with a lot of toppings, but especially wet toppings like tomatoes or pineapple require significantly more cooking.)
So let's improve things. Because of our deep-dish dough, we have no shortage of well-seasoned iron pans for the dough. In this, we add a mix of chopped green peppers (I'd prefer red or yellow, but I have to stick with what's available), chopped red onions, chopped tomatoes and sliced mushrooms. We're going to pour a little bit of garlic butter over this veggie medley and run the pan through our oven on the medium-cooking rack. (We have a conveyor-driven impingement oven, and that's it. It's very good for what it does, but it makes an awkward sauté device. But one learns to adapt.) This will nicely "grill" the veggies with the butter; the mushrooms will add some nice umami.
So, back to that pizza crust. We're putting tomato sauce on; it's not the only choice, but it's the most popular. But it needs something more, doesn't it? Over the layer of pizza sauce (uncooked; it's ground tomatoes, some water, and a seasoning mix of salt and herbs and no doubt other things) I add a drizzle of our ranch dressing.
Do NOT underestimate our ranch. The seasonings in it are pretty standard, but we start with extra-heavy mayo and buttermilk, the kind of thing that you can't buy in local stores. We have to special-order this stuff, and we make it ourselves every single day, like the sauce, like the dough.
You don't get the same quality with frozen dough shipped to stores and thawed, and you cannot convince me otherwise. Our dough isn't complicated at all, but fresh, hand-made dough is so much better than the alternatives.
Next, we must add cheese. Our cheese? No, not like those chains that buy frozen, pre-shredded boxes of cheese, each particle coated in cellulose to stop it from sticking. Ours? We take logs of mozzarella and a shredder, every day, after carefully assembling the cleaned blades and making sure that the machine will not commit awful mechanical suicide (the torque on literally every engine in the shop is insane) we push 'em through and carefully gather the shreds. We call this stuff "White gold," and it isn't cheap.
But I'm fond of cheese blends; I'll mix in other cheese that we have on hand-- cheddar, Romano, perhaps feta, sometimes even the provolone slices that we still use for our weird sandwich/calzone hybrid things. I'd add more, but, again, using what we have so we don't risk the wrath of corporate. Distribute evenly by hand, don't leave thin spots, for who wants those?
Those veggies are done now, caramelized and tasty, and they go on top of the cheese. Some of my kids don't eat meat; they're mostly set now, but others insist on further animal proteins. I often put grilled chicken on here, and maybe the addition of some nice, smokey bacon. I have to be careful with bacon, though-- it's tasty, but it tends to overwhelm subtler flavors. Still, it blends very nicely with the chicken indeed.
Okay, in the oven. I have a lot of stuff on this pizza; it will need a higher temperature and time to cook, but that's OK-- unlike most other places, our oven has three decks and four different chains, three different cooking temperatures and four different cooking times. Thickness of the pizza crust is an important detail here, so I make the necessary adjustments.
The pizza cooks; the cheese melts, and I used a lot of heat, so it becomes golden-brown, despite the cooking vegetables, the meats, all piled on top of each other, juices from the meats and veggies soaking into the flavor sponges that mushrooms are and transforming them while, in turn, adding that subtle vegetable umami to the blend. The grilled onions become sweeter and more tender; the peppers, likewise, the bitterness of green peppers becoming a subtle note in the symphony rather than a dominant aftertaste.
Okay, I cooked it. Are we ready to eat yet?
NO!
No, no, we have more work to do! A light dusting of garlic salt-- the garlic another flavor note, the salt light enough to bring out the flavors rather than becoming a flavor itself. (Alas, we have no fresh or roasted garlic! But one adapts.) Now we add the final touches-- perhaps some garlic butter around the crust, if it's hand-tossed, but otherwise, over to another station (once we've cut it with huge curved knives like scimitars fitted with an additional grip-point that would make them far too unbalanced to use as weapons using orthodox techniques) and NOW we add a little more mayo-- it doesn't take much; it's just a foundation for the real last step. Fresh, chopped lettuce and tomato. I'd add fresh spinach if we had it, but alas, it went bad too quickly, so corporate dropped it. Am I making a salad on top of the pizza? It may look like it, and I suppose I am, but the crisp, fresh taste of the lettuce, the acid of the tomatoes, these perform a wonderful contrast the the heaviness of pizza dough, cheese and meat, and one needs contrast in these matters.
Now, now we eat it. Carefully, though-- if it's thin crust, it MUST be cut in squares, or it won't be strong enough to support the toppings. If it's hand-tossed, consider the New York Fold as an approach to eating. Our deep dish can handle this as long as you manage to not spill the toppings everywhere when you bite into it.
If I used the deep dish, your lower jaw and tongue will encounter the crisp, fried outer layer of the dough first; your upper jaw, in turn, goes through a layer of fresh, crisp veggies, to the complex blend of flavors in the toppings, mixed together in the alchemy that is cooking, the hot cheese underneath still a bit melty, spreading over your mouth, the tomato sauce enhanced by the tangy richness of the ranch. You eat a slice. Perhaps two, if you are truly hungry.
And that will be enough. We're going to be hauling around fifty-pound bags of flour and fifty-pound boxes of mozzarella logs and hundred-pound buckets of freshly-mixed dough and stacks of pizza pans still rather warm from the oven and stacks of deep-dish dough and, later, cutting boards that are squares three feet on a side.
But this will give you the strength to go on. It fills your stomach in every regard, and-- hey, were you adding hot sauce to yours? That's fine. That's fine. I don't use it, but some people like the endorphin rush, and who am I to deny them?
But you got this pizza because you were good. Enjoy it.
And grab a slice quickly. Myles is coming back from his run, and he'll boggard the whole thing if we let him.
Hey, why not?
Reblog this if it’s okay to DM you and shoot the friendship shot.
I mean, yes. I listen to the new stuff. I listen to the old stuff. I buy music. I sponsor albums when I can. There is so much joy in music of all kinds and all types and all shapes and all eras and why wouldn't I?
'you still listen to music from 10 years ago 🤨?' bitch if prehistoric humans had audio recording technology id be sat up here listening to grog and unga bunga's greatest hits don't play with me
Hey, don't forget Orson Scott Card for this, too.
It's weird that to this day a lot of people don't really get the difference between like. "this author is a bad person and the work is problematic" normal style and the much more intense "the author is an important figure in a hate group and actively uses her money and power and fame to take away people's rights, and is currently very successful at doing that"
I'm down. If I want entertainment to fill that headspace, there's no shortage at all of choices. Worst Witch, anyone?
I haven't purchased a HP item in close to a decade - I use the books I already had as doorstops or to prop a laptop up for meetings nowadays.
There is NO "death of the author" with JK Rowling - she controls and continues to profit from her IP, and uses that money to fund hate groups.
I took developmental bio. Seriously, nothing is simple. Gender least of all, perhaps.
"there are only two sexes, it's literally third grade biology!" and pronouns are taught in kindergarten and you dont seem to understand those either
This is how we got here, yeah.
My cartoon for the latest issue of New Scientist.
Using the right name is important, and not everyone knows this, so here it is.
not to be maya on side but please do not call someone or something “mayan” when talking about our people, culture, etc. “mayan” refers to our language family (a language FAMILY, in which there are plenty of unique languages). we are the maya, not the mayans. i am maya, not mayan. it is the indigenous maya community, not the indigenous mayan community.
I mean, I’d buy the fiction compilation.
I bet octopuses think bones are horrific. I bet all their cosmic horror stories involve rigid-limbs and hinged joints.
I don't have a lot of followers, but what the hell. Someone might need to hear it.
To any suicidal followers I may have: This is a sign to not kill yourself. You are loved and the world is special because you are in it. Keep holding on.
Reblog this when it’s on your dash. You will save someone’s life.
-
thefaequestor reblogged this · 8 months ago -
unkajosh reblogged this · 1 year ago
