so what do you think of this? is there something im forgetting that should be included?


Many great games have fallen far because they failed at one aspect, one aspect so important and often neglected that the success of a game is made and broken by its execution. That which I speak is balancing; battles to be specific.

The problem is multifold, being chiefly caused by a lack of understanding of the player’s position, not understanding the repercussions of new elements, or are simplicity lost in the variables that must be dealt with in battle creation. This article is not about how to balance your game in regards to hard stats - there are plenty of those around - this article instead focuses on which factors you should consider when balancing your game beyond the numbers.


Understanding the view of the player is paramount in game creation. Not just in battles but in every aspect of your game. Know that your player may not like battles and thus avoid them at all costs. When they finally reach that end dungeon boss they maybe mercilessly slaughtered, or in the worst case scenario they may be able to squeak by until a point where they cannot backtrack to relevel or regroup. Always provide a backdoor for your player to fall back to if they make a poor choice; never force them to restart the game. This could be as simple as setting up a rest point and save junction in a lengthy dungeon or providing a way for the player to escape to town to restock in an emergency. You may even wish to consider having no save points in places where the player could be stuck for supplies without escape.

Always be aware that players will play your game differently. Some may like using stat boosters like shield and attack up, or using status effect spells. Others will just pile everything towards their attack power and hope for the best. Don’t force the player to play a certain way; they will resent restrictions to their playing style. Provide the way you want the player to play, showing that they can have an easier time if they utilize their full arsenal but make sure they can still win if they choose their own route. A player shouldn’t be forced to use a certain spell just to damage a boss and have everything else they have achieved be of no use (unless the plot explains such an occurrence). If you want a player to use a shield rather then two weapons then show early on that it’s really within their interest to use one.

In the same token you don’t want to provide anything that can unbalance your game. Make “foodâ€

I agree with everything you are saying here. One thing that I would like to note as a gamer is that not only do I not want to be stuck in a hopeless situation, like a dungeon I cannot leave where I may not be able to get to a save point and shop, but I also don't even want to feel like it is a possibility. A good game allows you to feel as though you have accomplished something by strengthening your character without making you think you ever have to play perfectly to do so. For example with games like Shadow Hearts, I always felt that I could get away from a random battle dungeon and I always felt like if I prepared I could beat any boss, yet I thoroughly enjoyed everything about battling. I fear that too many designers might make the freshman mistake of thinking it is a good idea to make you prove that you are good at battling to have to earn your leveling up by battling and using items perfectly instead of rewarding you for just continuing with the game. Nothing kills the momentum of a game like a unnecessarily difficult boss or dungeon which causes you to put the game away and play something else. That is why Dragon Quest VIII is sitting in a box in my closet.

Also, I completely agree with you about getting really good weapons too early. This is a mistake I have noticed in many professional games for some reason, so I hope it isn't too prevalent in RPGM games.

Hey, thanks for quoting me, Karr. It comes as a pleasant surprise, as I felt rather useless in the topic you took the quote from.

Since you quoted me, though, I feel I should add some qualifiers to what I was talking about. The game I was talking about has non-repeating event-based battles. If we were talking about random encounters or event-based battles that come back when you leave and re-enter the area, I wouldn't feel good about the sentence "Each regular encounter [...] is like a boss fight in its own right."

The reason why they're like boss fights is because I wanted opponents who could keep up with me and put up a decent fight, as opposed to the standard "knock 'em down with one hit" enemy. I enjoy being challenged (but not too much) to think about who I'm going up against and work out a strategy to efficiently defeat them. I wanted the goblins, orcs, and other beasties to at least look like they're trying their best, if not in practice (when they do try their very best, the player barely scrapes by). A carefully balanced battle is an illusion that hopefully gives the player the impression that these opponents mean business and are trying their best to put the player down. In reality, the player always has an edge. While the monsters may be evenly matched with the player in terms of stats, the player should have an advantage that enables him to defeat these guys without taking any losses or having too much difficulty with it.

In short, there's a Goldilocks Zone between "too easy" and "too hard".

If we're talking random encounters or battles that repeat, I think they should be easy because the difficulty is in the volume of encounters that need to be swathed through.

When we're talking non-repeating event battles, I think they can be decently challenging like a boss fight. In the game I was talking about, there aren't all that many encounters. I think there are 53 in the whole game, including boss fights, if my memory serves right. Also, each encounter is a unique combination of monsters. There are no repeats. I did that so it wouldn't get redundant. Each new encounter presents a new situation and a different combination of monsters, often spanning multiple tiers.

With all of this said, I did break one of your rules by introducing elemental combat into the mix, which is a set of rules that govern how the heroes and monsters interact with each other. It's not a situation where you can do anything you want. Gotta play by the rules if you want to have an easy time of it. Still, I like the set of rules I put into play, and I don't believe it detracts from the difficulty or use of strategy.

Another thing I did that parts with your rules for a balanced battling experience is the frequent use of enhancing spells and damaging magic. If you just attack attack attack, you're not gonna get very far. Enhancing spells that improve your speed, damage power, magic power, defense, and other things are there for a reason. They make it much easier and less time consuming than just attack attack attack. The game I made is for the strategy player, someone who's going to use everything in his arsenal.

I'm a logical thinker when it comes to battling. In most of the games I've played, I look for the easiest way to defeat the opponents (which usually involves some very powerful damaging magic). Once I've stumbled upon the best (most efficient) way to knock down the opposition, I rinse and repeat unless the situation changes with the introduction of opposition that's resistant to the spells I've been using. But for the most part I'm using one or two very powerful spells because they consistently work. When a new, even more powerful spell is gained, I start using that. There are usually many other spells, skills, and abilities that I don't use because they're not as efficient. Why make it harder than it has to be? There's a logic to it.

So in designing the game I was talking about, I wanted to create an ever-changing situation where I need to adapt my strategy to the current encounter. The next encounter could be very different and therefore require a different approach. But also, a game where almost everything in the player's arsenal is actually useful at some time. That doesn't mean you have to use everything in your arsenal constantly. There will be situations where it's a good idea to use a melee damage enhancer, and other situations where it's a better idea to use your powerful magic, and then situations where it's a great idea to use a defensive enhancer so as to reduce the damage you're suffering.

But while it's important to use everything in your arsenal, there's always an opportunity for a varying playing style. My sister played the game much differently than I do. She often had different priorities in regard to which enemy character to get rid of first. She used different strategies than I did. And I observed that it turned out just as well. It could be argued that neither playing style is inherently better than the other. They both got the job done efficiently.

Another thing I did that breaks one of your rules is, I didn't have the view of the player in mind. I did away with experience and leveling because when analyzed logically it's intrinsically pointless. You start out at rookie level as a wimp, spend some time gaining experience, then you gain a level. Suddenly those goblins who were giving you a hard time of it are getting knocked down with one hit a piece. Then what happens next? You enter a new area or new monsters show up who can keep up with your current level of attack and defense. You gain more experience and more levels, then you're able to easily trump these new guys. Then yet more new guys show up who can put up a decent fight, and so on. I said to myself, "Why not just streamline it?" It was much easier for me as the designer. You gain Hp and Mp after each boss fight (each dungeon has a boss). You gain better attack and defense and stuff from purchasing better equipment and accessories. So the only real reward you get for defeating a group of monsters is access to the room or area that they were guarding, which has treasures and other goodies to find. Personally, I have no problem with this because the reason why I play a game is to play a game. But I imagine it was probably a major turn-off for most players because it doesn't look like you're getting anything for having beaten down those monsters (experience, levels, which provide an obvious feeling of gain and accomplishment). When analyzed logically, every encounter provides some kind of reward; just not the most obvious kind.

Anyway, this is just some context provided for what you quoted.

i think whats best in this case is to have a link star at the end of the quote and have it link to a copy of this post unless there is an immediate change youd like me to make to the quote to best encompass what youve said.


i think i need to add a section on how rules can be broken providing there is a steady incline on their introduction and now an all at once assault of new information.

what i liked from your quote is more or less the incline of battle difficulty and its constant flux of rewarding progression, and giving a suitable challenge. many professional games use similar tactics to build the stage, final fantasy games are a good example of this. their beginning encounters are basic, they offer few magical attacks and are easily beatable by your party. by the end of the game the difficulty scale reflect that of your partys performance. you will need to pull out big spells and abilities to beat some of the minion, where in the beginning of the game you could just get by with attacks.

remember that you dont necessarily need to make a battle beatable by just attacking, but to some degree it should be though you would make it much more difficult to do so. a player shouldnt have to pull out his stat boosting spells for every minion battle, but should for boss fights. encourage the player to use his full array of power, but dont make it impossible to win by forcing a certain way of playing.

i think i should reword that portion of the article.

No, don't change the quote. It's probably fine the way it is.

The first few paragraphs of my post provide some context for the statement that "Each regular encounter is like a boss fight." The game I made is different from the standard run-of-the-mill game. It doesn't follow the same general rules for battles with lackeys. It's almost a custom battle system where the average group of lackeys puts up a good fight. So before you start telling designers to "make each encounter like a boss fight", it should be known that what I'm talking about is something that deviates from the norm.

Then I proceeded to point out a few things that I did wrong, rules that I broke. "Don't force the player to play it a certain way." The elemental combat is like a custom battle system, imposing a set of rules beyond the standard rules you described. It does force the player to play it a certain way because most of the characters have elemental strengths and weaknesses that should be taken into consideration.

Another thing I did wrong was the frequent use of enhancers and stuff. You could probably beat it without using them, but it'll take longer to play it out. Especially where speed enhancers are concerned. They give you a notable edge in speed, which makes a big difference (you can attack and heal more often). In a pitched battle where you're going to be spending a decent number of turns exchanging blows with the enemy, it pays off to use one of those turns to enhance your speed, attack, or defense. A run-of-the-mill encounter usually doesn't last as long as the pitched fights in my game, so in that situation it may be a waste of a turn of cast your enhancing spells. I was trying to draw a comparison and difference between the game I was talking about and other games.

Finally, I broke yet another rule, that of giving the player an obvious at-a-glance reward for each encounter in the form of experience and levels.

So while it may look like I'm doing some things right, I thought I'd provide a counter point to that and say, "Well, based on what I'm seeing here, I did some things wrong, too."

What you describe of what you liked about the quote is just a matter of common sense. Start the player off easy while he's getting acclimated to the battling environment. Ease him into the game, then start adding challenges later. There's a logic to it. I didn't want to overwhelm my audience from the get-go. I've played a few RPGM games where I felt overwhelmed at the start, with enemy characters tossing out magic and even healing that's a bit too powerful for a Tier 1 group of monsters, and I felt that those games could have benefited from a much more gradual incline toward difficulty.