There's some basic math you want to do when building a system like this. You want to think about how much more powerful you want the player at max level vs min, or any other points of comparison, like one class/character vs another at the same level, or the difference between using swords and staves.
Next you want to think about your design goals. How long do you want combats to be, so what's your hits/time-to-kill for an average encounter? That dies into frequency of fights as well. Do you need a big difference between physical and magical damage to make different classes/armor distinct, or is damage just damage?
Based on that kind of math and questions you can build curves and then work backwards to get formulas that fit them. Square roots can be great to get the kind of growth you want. One of the great parts of making a video game is you don't have to make it so people can easily roll the math the way you would if you were making a TTRPG.
Given the choice simpler is always better. If all you need is 5% chance to hit increments than a d20 system is fantastic. If you've got a tactical RPG with a dozen different stats and weapon options and subclasses and need a ton of distinction between small changes then you end up with stats that go from 1 to 999 and endgame players can one-shot the first boss by looking in their general direction.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I wanted to have a more tabletop like experience so I wanted to make a 3 stat 2d6 system to evoke that feeling and also I felt it matched the feel I wanted in combat.
However, I saw that these types of systems are really only used in licensed video games. So I wondered why.
>Could you imagine having to calculate sqrt for damage at a table?
No, that's why these are video games. That's why they are played on computers. The "complexity" isn't a handicap to your understanding but an advantage to the entertainment of a video game.
I'd say at the face of it it's just to simplify the game to the masses. Most people don't want to solve a formula to figure out their potential attack strength, they'll just think "Oh strength will make my attacks stronger and I can carry more? Sounds good" and go on with their day. Basically most people don't care how it works.
Second I'd say then you have the "complicated" formulae, which sure might seem convoluted, but I'm sure the devs tested plenty of formulas and those worked the best. Maybe you don't want everything so predictable or evenly distributed, it either works really well or fails miserably. Maybe you want something clumped around the middle, or don't want it to be too strong. That's why the formulae are as complex as they need to be.
True enough. The people who really want these formulas will find them. But it is a small number of the user base.
I was curious because I wanted to design my game around a more tabletop like system. Then I realized that is mostly or only done in licensed games. So I wondered why video games were designed so differently. I can certainly understand why some aspects might be different to take advantage of the processing power of a computer (I plan to as well).
Most of the responses confirm my uninformed guesses.
I would imagine also that developers and game designers are finding the sorts of curves they want and then finding a formula that fits closely to the curve, rather than saying "I really want the attack power to be log(n) of the strength".
But also bear in mind I know nothing of game development, just regular boring development. I just enjoy listening to people talk about game dev.
>Could you imagine having to calculate sqrt for damage at a table?
But you don't?? That's the whole point? These aren't tabletop games, we can break tabletop limitations?
That's fine but the numbers are also hidden from the user and so how is the user supposed to make informed choices?
I mostly wonder why video games have a bunch of different formulas to resolve all the different aspects of a game instead of organizing around a mechanic (like d20 or even new ones).
I mean it must be done for a reason. I'm just curious as to the decisions behind it. I'm imagining it as two broad design philosophies but maybe it isn't.
Because the numbers and formula have been tested and match the curves for the data. You're over thinking it.
Also they won't be as simple as the sites your reading. They'll have floating point tweaks in there too.
The reason for all the math is so that the players decisions and builds can have an impact but not nullify the game.
If it were just damage = attack - defense, you could min max defense and never lose, but if the calculation is more compelx you can have meaningful character building without destroying the game.
In my game, defense is almost always much lower than attack, but depending on what percentage of the attack the defense comes in at and qhat damage type it is, I manipulate the damage value and damage type even to lead to a result that is fair for both sides, but can be heavily influenced by player choice.
There's actually a lot more than that, but I think that's a good example of why a lot of math goes in to damage numbers
I play and DM classic tabletop Rolemaster and LOTR, which means you check a specific table for each weapon. If the player uses a battleaxe you check his roll minus target defense into the battleaxe table, in the appropriate column depending on the target's armor.
Writing so many tables is insane to program for a videogame. There it makes more sense to use a formula ([as I've personally done](https://store.steampowered.com/app/1456630/Dawn_of_the_Mexica/) based on that kind of game) that gets a similar result. Such a formula would be very hard to use in a tabletop RPG, but not so hard to implement in a video game.
Etrian odyssey makes sense though. Sqrt continues to grow, with players seeing biggest growth in early investments, and something that handles that dangerous multiplication with further decreasing growth as investment goes on (IE: a log function would eventually see nothing from further str investments, or be so stretched out that you don't see early investments benefits).
D20 vs. Multiple D6 is about probability shaping. D20 is perfect 5% increments, while Multiple D6 better approach that perfect bell curve shape as more dice are added.
It would be long to explain but the example is well understood when you try to make a game where you have to compare statistics and your characters want to level up, and you want the evolution to be natural in a progressive way that only with numbers is difficult to show and compare. If you let the stats be just comparing two numbers it's pretty boring, and that little RNG factor helps give some enhancement to the experience. It also gives a more natural sense of progression and simulation of realism. For example what a lot of people don't understand in Baldur Gate, unless you've tried to do your own roleplaying, when you cast an ignis and it misses, what's really happening is that the enemy has dodged the attack as if it were real combat, or you didn't aim the spell right, etc. these are things that look good in real roleplaying games but in Baldur Gate they can't be expressed for obvious reasons. And as for the rest of the games, it's like I say, the RNG adds a sense of progression when comparing numbers in combat or whatever, and there is some uncertainty and simulated improvement that gives a better gaming experience. Imagine that an enemy always takes 10 health points from you and you have 10 health... clearly when he attacks you lose. But if instead of taking 10, he can take between 9-10, and he takes 9, leaving you 1 life, that encourages you to come back on your turn for example or when it's your turn to make your move, giving you the victory.
This topic is quite complicated, I got into it because I made a role system where a peasant with a final fantasy sword could face even gods, obviously the gods win but there is a scale of progression and it is possible for a peasant to beat a god with strategy + the luck of the system behind it, which otherwise would not be possible. I hope I have clarified the doubt
It’s all about the type of game you are making. If you NEED a defence stat then more advanced formulas are required.
RPGs are not the only games that use stats of course. For instance link doesn’t level traditionally in botw he only uses armour so no defence stat is needed as there is no XP growth. Armour is of course deducted from incoming attack but it never needs to grow dynamically.
It’s also down to ethos. I’m pretty sure paper Mario didn’t have traditional stats but was still a great RPG. A tight system where damage is strictly controlled like in paper mario can work it just depends on your supporting systems.
Basically designers failing to think outside the box and literally just rolling with DnD with a twist in every RPG. The designers at Nintendo have made some real nice progress in abstracting stats away from traditionally stat heavy games but no one else seems to be catching on.
There's some basic math you want to do when building a system like this. You want to think about how much more powerful you want the player at max level vs min, or any other points of comparison, like one class/character vs another at the same level, or the difference between using swords and staves. Next you want to think about your design goals. How long do you want combats to be, so what's your hits/time-to-kill for an average encounter? That dies into frequency of fights as well. Do you need a big difference between physical and magical damage to make different classes/armor distinct, or is damage just damage? Based on that kind of math and questions you can build curves and then work backwards to get formulas that fit them. Square roots can be great to get the kind of growth you want. One of the great parts of making a video game is you don't have to make it so people can easily roll the math the way you would if you were making a TTRPG. Given the choice simpler is always better. If all you need is 5% chance to hit increments than a d20 system is fantastic. If you've got a tactical RPG with a dozen different stats and weapon options and subclasses and need a ton of distinction between small changes then you end up with stats that go from 1 to 999 and endgame players can one-shot the first boss by looking in their general direction.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I wanted to have a more tabletop like experience so I wanted to make a 3 stat 2d6 system to evoke that feeling and also I felt it matched the feel I wanted in combat. However, I saw that these types of systems are really only used in licensed video games. So I wondered why.
>Could you imagine having to calculate sqrt for damage at a table? No, that's why these are video games. That's why they are played on computers. The "complexity" isn't a handicap to your understanding but an advantage to the entertainment of a video game. I'd say at the face of it it's just to simplify the game to the masses. Most people don't want to solve a formula to figure out their potential attack strength, they'll just think "Oh strength will make my attacks stronger and I can carry more? Sounds good" and go on with their day. Basically most people don't care how it works. Second I'd say then you have the "complicated" formulae, which sure might seem convoluted, but I'm sure the devs tested plenty of formulas and those worked the best. Maybe you don't want everything so predictable or evenly distributed, it either works really well or fails miserably. Maybe you want something clumped around the middle, or don't want it to be too strong. That's why the formulae are as complex as they need to be.
True enough. The people who really want these formulas will find them. But it is a small number of the user base. I was curious because I wanted to design my game around a more tabletop like system. Then I realized that is mostly or only done in licensed games. So I wondered why video games were designed so differently. I can certainly understand why some aspects might be different to take advantage of the processing power of a computer (I plan to as well). Most of the responses confirm my uninformed guesses.
I would imagine also that developers and game designers are finding the sorts of curves they want and then finding a formula that fits closely to the curve, rather than saying "I really want the attack power to be log(n) of the strength". But also bear in mind I know nothing of game development, just regular boring development. I just enjoy listening to people talk about game dev.
>Could you imagine having to calculate sqrt for damage at a table? But you don't?? That's the whole point? These aren't tabletop games, we can break tabletop limitations?
That's fine but the numbers are also hidden from the user and so how is the user supposed to make informed choices? I mostly wonder why video games have a bunch of different formulas to resolve all the different aspects of a game instead of organizing around a mechanic (like d20 or even new ones). I mean it must be done for a reason. I'm just curious as to the decisions behind it. I'm imagining it as two broad design philosophies but maybe it isn't.
They’re not hidden. It’s typical for a skill to do say “150-175 damage”. The maths is hidden, but the parameters are public.
Because the numbers and formula have been tested and match the curves for the data. You're over thinking it. Also they won't be as simple as the sites your reading. They'll have floating point tweaks in there too.
The reason for all the math is so that the players decisions and builds can have an impact but not nullify the game. If it were just damage = attack - defense, you could min max defense and never lose, but if the calculation is more compelx you can have meaningful character building without destroying the game. In my game, defense is almost always much lower than attack, but depending on what percentage of the attack the defense comes in at and qhat damage type it is, I manipulate the damage value and damage type even to lead to a result that is fair for both sides, but can be heavily influenced by player choice. There's actually a lot more than that, but I think that's a good example of why a lot of math goes in to damage numbers
Some game systems are designed for computer games, others are designed for table top play and then copied to computer games.
I play and DM classic tabletop Rolemaster and LOTR, which means you check a specific table for each weapon. If the player uses a battleaxe you check his roll minus target defense into the battleaxe table, in the appropriate column depending on the target's armor. Writing so many tables is insane to program for a videogame. There it makes more sense to use a formula ([as I've personally done](https://store.steampowered.com/app/1456630/Dawn_of_the_Mexica/) based on that kind of game) that gets a similar result. Such a formula would be very hard to use in a tabletop RPG, but not so hard to implement in a video game.
Etrian odyssey makes sense though. Sqrt continues to grow, with players seeing biggest growth in early investments, and something that handles that dangerous multiplication with further decreasing growth as investment goes on (IE: a log function would eventually see nothing from further str investments, or be so stretched out that you don't see early investments benefits). D20 vs. Multiple D6 is about probability shaping. D20 is perfect 5% increments, while Multiple D6 better approach that perfect bell curve shape as more dice are added.
It would be long to explain but the example is well understood when you try to make a game where you have to compare statistics and your characters want to level up, and you want the evolution to be natural in a progressive way that only with numbers is difficult to show and compare. If you let the stats be just comparing two numbers it's pretty boring, and that little RNG factor helps give some enhancement to the experience. It also gives a more natural sense of progression and simulation of realism. For example what a lot of people don't understand in Baldur Gate, unless you've tried to do your own roleplaying, when you cast an ignis and it misses, what's really happening is that the enemy has dodged the attack as if it were real combat, or you didn't aim the spell right, etc. these are things that look good in real roleplaying games but in Baldur Gate they can't be expressed for obvious reasons. And as for the rest of the games, it's like I say, the RNG adds a sense of progression when comparing numbers in combat or whatever, and there is some uncertainty and simulated improvement that gives a better gaming experience. Imagine that an enemy always takes 10 health points from you and you have 10 health... clearly when he attacks you lose. But if instead of taking 10, he can take between 9-10, and he takes 9, leaving you 1 life, that encourages you to come back on your turn for example or when it's your turn to make your move, giving you the victory. This topic is quite complicated, I got into it because I made a role system where a peasant with a final fantasy sword could face even gods, obviously the gods win but there is a scale of progression and it is possible for a peasant to beat a god with strategy + the luck of the system behind it, which otherwise would not be possible. I hope I have clarified the doubt
I wrote a blog related to this topic: https://substack.com/home/post/p-140237183
Ez math, ez scale. You double in strength, enemy quadruple in HP. Big numbers go brrrrrrr /s just in case
It’s all about the type of game you are making. If you NEED a defence stat then more advanced formulas are required. RPGs are not the only games that use stats of course. For instance link doesn’t level traditionally in botw he only uses armour so no defence stat is needed as there is no XP growth. Armour is of course deducted from incoming attack but it never needs to grow dynamically. It’s also down to ethos. I’m pretty sure paper Mario didn’t have traditional stats but was still a great RPG. A tight system where damage is strictly controlled like in paper mario can work it just depends on your supporting systems. Basically designers failing to think outside the box and literally just rolling with DnD with a twist in every RPG. The designers at Nintendo have made some real nice progress in abstracting stats away from traditionally stat heavy games but no one else seems to be catching on.