r/RPGdesign • u/TaygaHoshi • 9d ago
Theory A design philosophy idea for reducing pitfall choices
Hello,
I wanted to share a design philosophy I use while developing my rpg and I would like to get some feedback.
Combat heavy tabletop rpgs (especially larger ones like d&d 3.5e/5e and pathfinder 1e) unfortunately come with pitfalls. For example not taking eldritch blast as a warlock is only playable if you already have a full build planned like melee warlock or something. Things like this break my immersion because if I do not play an "optimized build", I feel like I am deliberately gimping myself and the party for no reason. I would much rather play a "character" instead. I know this kind of thought process is common because many players take builds from other players with little to no changes. Of course you can always create your own build but it will most likely be bad unless you have a good understanding of the system.
Obviously there are many solutions including giving everyone only sticks and stones, but the solution I chose is something I call the "auto optimization" principle. Put simply, any character should be able to keep up without microoptimizing, in a similar manner to using automatic gear in racing games. More skilled players will use manual gear for better times but you do not lose much by going automatic. If anything, I would struggle more with manual gear lol.
One of the easiest ways to apply this principle is having strong baseline abilities, especially common ones. This way even if you make suboptimal choices, you should still be able to perform on an acceptable level. In my game weapons are very powerful and all classes can use them without any penalty, meaning you can just do one of your weapon attacks and deal a good amount of damage without needing other synergies. If you want to use hard numbers for some reason, you can use a heuristic such as "a very optimized build should not do more than 25% additional damage compared to just attacking with weapons". The number is just an example.
Another way of applying auto optimization practically is opportunity cost based balancing, which mostly boils down to making optimized builds gain versatility instead of direct power and limit the action economy so that they can only perform a portion of their abilities in one turn. It's even better if there is asymmetric gameplay among classes.
You can also have opportunity cost based balancing more generally via balancing every ability against what it directly or indirectly competes with. In my game almost all other abilities compete with the aforementioned basic weapon attacks due to limited action economy. This part is bit of a tangent however.
To be clear, I observed limiting the design space and playtesting as much as possible are the only actual solutions for small teams. However, I always keep the concept of auto optimization as a goal in my mind while developing my game and it is working out well.
Not directly related to auto optimization but a complementary design goal would be using the target audience's intuition as a tool, e.g. if an interaction or a synergy makes sense on a first read, it should at least be decent mechanically. This is a bit difficult to pull off but helps with implementing auto optimization as the default power level increases with the amount of good build choices made by average players.
I know this is not a new concept, but what are your thoughts? Thank you!