Something can be 5x as strong if you make it 5x as expensive
I guess the problem here ist to judge how strong that something really is.
Sure, you can build an extremely complex algorithm to judge how much e.g. an ability that increases a characters speed enhances it´s strength in combat.
Judging how much players will want to have that ability simply because it cuts down time to move from one site to the other is not as easy though.
Say you want to implement that "speed" ability and are going to assign a value to it, say, an experience point cost to level it.
You will have to make decisions, such as "Do I want to give this ability away nearly for free because players desire it so much, or do I assign a heavy cost to it BECAUSE players desire it so much and will spend the XP on it anyway?".
Your post was interesting to read non the less; seems like I have to learn more about game theory.
@Wrathnut:I don´t know the first edition D&D Books but I have found some (A)D&D publications to be quite good when it comes to such things.
The TSR-wrought "Alternity" roleplaying system, published not long before they were taken over bei WotC, often offers really nice ideas that are clearly structured; such as different FTL drives, Weapons, Ship types, etc. per technological development level.
However one thing that those books, and almost certainly also the old D&D books, don´t offer is perfect balancing for a computer RPG.
Simply because it is not necessary there, nor does it even have to be wanted.
In a pen&paper RPG you have the gamemaster to judge on a case by case basis, in a computer game you can´t do that.
So when TSR published the Player´s Option books which allowed you to practically build your own character class by choosing from a list of abilities, the authors explicitly covered the topic of onesided powergamer charakters and both appealed to the players not to build such characters as well as to the GM to be wary not to accept such characters.
For a computer game on the other hand you need definite rules because no GM is there to judge the situation.
Now what WotC did with D&D 3rd Edition and especially D&D 4th Edition is to mitigate exactly those problems that arose of the necessity of the GM to individually judge a situation.
I have one exact example for this.
The disintegration spell had been with (A)D&D for a long time and so also appeared in D&D 3.0.
The rules for this spell said that it would disintegrate a certain volume of material, be it inanimate or living.
This made this spell into practically the deadliest spell in the game, because you would just assume to disintegrate vital parts of an enemies body, theoretically even being able to disintegrate part of a dragons head and at least causing loads of damage.
But there trouble arose, because normally you could count that spell as a special instantdeath spell, but under some circumstances it would not mean instant death for the victim, because, say, the dragon´s head was so big that even the several dozen liters of disintegrated volume would not necessarilly kill it.
And the spells description offered no measure of how much damage this spell would do to a victim that was not instantly killed, so it was totally up to the GM how much damage that would be or when a victim would be completely disintegrated.
So when D&D 3.5 came out WotC would go and change the rules of the spell to "does 40W6 points of damage" (or so) and only disintegrating a victim if all of it´s hitpoints were diminished.
Now I guess I would put it like that - you can mathematically balance the figures but you can´t mathematically balance fun.
D&D 4th Edition shows what can happen if you try to hard to "get your rules straight".
Previous editions had featured certain sub-rulesystems for e.g. spellcasting, but now those systems were "balanced" out and by doing that lost much of their appeal.
Now every character class had loads of special abilities, and because there were so many of them, they all somehow seemed to be pretty much alike. They, too, lost appeal.
So for effectively balancing a game you also have to take into account how things affect the player, how much fun a certain rule or element is, etc., and that won´t be done by following a guideline or relying on mathematics.
Cause in the end balancing only serves the purpose of making the game more fun, and a mathematically balanced build that is no fun to play contradicts that.
I however know of a book that covers RPGs, and it even is freely available as a pdf.
It´s called "Design Patterns of Successful Role-Playing Games" and is written by Whitson John Kirk III.
You can find it here:
http://rpg-design-patterns.speedykitty.com/doku.phpI personally only had a short look at it, because it was to analytic for me.
It did seem like a pretty thorough work though, with it´s over 260 pages and lots of graphs, so give it a try!
2
