Role Saturation: A Pro or Con?

[SAYNE]

Since my last topic was such a smashing... success? (with the amount of replies at least, not my own viewpoint) I decided to start another.

This is a two point question: is Role Saturation, or having more than one model doing similar things, a bad thing or a good thing from an A) Game Design perspective and from a B.) Crew Design perspective?

Suffice to say, Malifaux is unique among wargames, in that each model is different in significant ways from others even among it's own faction, and the drive to create a new and fresh concept is difficult to say the least. Mechanics are being introduced that help break up the sameness of different models, and fluff reasons or pre-existing options acquire new synergistic approaches to different problems. However, most models can be broken down into a few easy to categorize roles.

Damage: Sub-categories include High cost vs. low cost and Shoot/Melee/Cast options.

Supporting: Which include Healers, Buffers, Debuffers, and Specialty mechanics like Card-draw.

Summoners: Fairly self-explanatory.

and lastly Schemers: Who vary in their approach but often have elements of most, with mobility and ways to interact while engaged or other similar mechanics.

Of course, the game is not so black and white and the VAST majority of models can fit in two or more categories, amplifying this "greyness".

 

Naturally as the game evolves and adds more models, they have to fit somewhere within these notions. Players will often build crews with these core concepts in mind, picking and choosing the best (or their favorites) in each category based upon cost and the prevalence and ease of scoring certain Strategies and Schemes. 

 

In my opinion, I believe that in both instances Role Saturation is actually a Pro. Having multiple models, at least with slight variance, that can achieve a similar result is actually a good thing in a game, as it allows a multitude of different "build" paths to achieve what you're likely trying to do, win the game. It allows for favorite models and aesthetics to be nearly as effective in most situations and, for the majority of players, the differences in optimization are negligible at best. Having to choose which model is best is not always the easiest thing to do before a game has begun, and as such, playing with what you like is going to achieve a much more favorable result, at the very least, you're losing while having fun.

From a pure Game Design perspective, it gets a little more neutral. Oversaturation CAN occur and is usually the above but taken to the extent where models are nearly identical and as such provide no purpose to pick some ever, and if thoughts like this permeate communities, can often lead to people saying "Don't even bother buying that when you can get this." which cuts into a game's profits. There is more than one reason to have a large pool of viable models. However, when saturation is done correctly, it allows for flexibility, and at least where balance is concerned, multiple ways to attack a balance issue. If, for example, armor was a far larger problem than it currently is, a new introduced model that could avoid armor would automatically be rated higher, even if it was functionally exactly the same (or even technically worse) than another similar model. This seems bad at first ("why choose the old model?") but it would normally give way to ease of usability, perhaps slightly better stats in some way, or an additional ability the other lacks and if you could make these small, yet meaningful choices, it makes you a smarter and likely better player, and the game company wins.

I'd love to hear your viewpoints on these, whether you think we have too much saturation or not enough, is it a good thing in the long run or a bad thing, etc.

Thanks for reading!

[James Dyson]

Design-wise, I think it's healthy to have multiple models that do the same overall job (i.e. scheme running) in different ways.  I also feel like Wyrd has done a good job of ensuring there are 2-3 options for each role in a given crew, in every faction.  

Crew Design-wise, I think the biggest problem here is the 'objectively better' problem.  Some models are seen as 'objectively better' in their role than other options available.  There are cases where I feel that it's true - for example, I think that for the cost difference Bandido's are objectively better than Desperate Mercenaries. More often than not, things are described as 'objectively better' when they are really 'subjectively better'.  That speaks more to your point on personal preference/ playing with favorites.  

[Ludvig]

I think role saturation is good. It's interesting to be able to have similar roles in different themes for those of use who enjoy theme. It's tough to balance models with similar roles since it's the easier it is to compare two models, the easier it is to decide one is better.

A nurse and a belle do very different jobs so it's tough to argue one is objectively better in every situation. It's a lot easier to argue how Francisco is generally better than Samael because Francisco does just about everything Samael does and does a few things Samael can't so Francisco is almost always a better choice. Synergies can make up for some of that but not all of it. 

I almost wouldn't mind identical models with different keywords if those keywords provided a meaningful difference. In m1.5e companion was often tied to a specific keyword so Francisco could only companion if another Family model had gone before. That provided a reason to take him with other Family more often than if you didn't have a lot of family. In that kind of situation I think it's a lot more forgiving to have similar models. I believe Arcanists have this mechanic in that some of their masters have heavy synergy with the beast, M&SU or Construct keywords so a beast and a construct could have very similar roles and no one would have a problem with that because there are masters that will love the beast and others who will prefer the M&SU construct. Ressers also have some pretty interesting synergies tied to both keywords and certain conditions like poison.

[Myyrä]

I don't think role saturation is that much of a question of good or bad. It's just unavoidable in a miniature game. The companies have to develop new products to sell stuff to their existing customers. The only way you could avoid role saturation in a situation like that is to forbid using older models or create entirely new roles for models all the time, both of which would more or less equate to creating a whole new game periodically.

I think role saturation definitely isn't a bad thing for the player of the game. Models in miniature games are more than just their rules and functionality in the game. They also have the corresponding miniatures, and most miniature game players enjoy getting new cool miniatures. Having an overlap in their roles in the game just gives the player more alternatives to choose from, and if the game rules are reasonably well balanced that also means that players can choose their minis based on their aesthetics as well.

It's unfortunately quite difficult to keep the rules of the models reasonably well balanced. I'd say Wyrd has been doing quite a good job there (while GW for example has not). However, like I already said, role saturation is unavoidable. The game creators could choose to bitch and moan about it, but that wouldn't change anything. It's just a challenge you have to live with. It's up to you whether you choose to see it as opportunity to test the limits of your creativity or just an unsurmountable obstacle that eventually ruins all miniature games.

[retnab]

I think that while unavoidable for business reasons (company needs to make $ somehow), there are ways to make it appealing to players. Like Ludvig said, changing keywords to make models which would otherwise have very similar roles be treated differently in different crews (like a Silurid with Marcus or an Ice Dancer with Rasputina), but you can also radically change either how they do their job or what else they do. More options means you can pick and choose to have a list that does exactly what you want, instead of having to shoehorn in a model which otherwise synergizes very little with the crew just to have that one role you'd otherwise be missing.

Going back to Rasputina as an example, pre-wave 3 she had very little options for scheme running that felt relevant to her, which is why sometimes people had to use a 9ss aggressive beater model (Blessed of December) as a scheme runner just because it had a scheme runner ability in Leap. Technically, the Ice Dancer's replaced it's spot as a Frozen Heart scheme runner, but realistically it's now more accurately filling it's slot as an offensive model / secondary schemer. Having the options makes other models better by letting them focus even more on doing exactly what they want to do, IMO.

[SAYNE]

Cool thoughts guys, glad to hear the responses. Not many dissenting opinions which is interesting, although it's possible it's too early. Every so often I'd read on a thread how saturation is bad (for multiple reasons), although it's usually on a "Why is X bad?" Or something to that effect. 

Actually I'm kinda curious as to why Francisco got changed in the way he did from 1.5 to 2e as it seems that would be the perfect... Cuddle. Would keep him largely relevant and unchanged, just with some tweaks around him. Ala bringing a random pistolero or abuela, or maybe the new monster hunters just to synergize could still keep him functioning in most crews but it's a higher investment. Plus fluff wise it would seem like "the family always fight together" and that's just cool even for a non guild player (aside from Lucius). 

 

[Ludvig]

3 hours ago, SAYNE said:

Cool thoughts guys, glad to hear the responses. Not many dissenting opinions which is interesting, although it's possible it's too early. Every so often I'd read on a thread how saturation is bad (for multiple reasons), although it's usually on a "Why is X bad?" Or something to that effect. 

Actually I'm kinda curious as to why Francisco got changed in the way he did from 1.5 to 2e as it seems that would be the perfect... Cuddle. Would keep him largely relevant and unchanged, just with some tweaks around him. Ala bringing a random pistolero or abuela, or maybe the new monster hunters just to synergize could still keep him functioning in most crews but it's a higher investment. Plus fluff wise it would seem like "the family always fight together" and that's just cool even for a non guild player (aside from Lucius). 

 

Keywords specific chain abilities were erased from the game and turned into general ones. A lot of stuff got simplified to save space on cards and probably to make it more accessible. I think Sonnia's new upgrade is the only keyword specific chain in m2e. Monster hunters don't exactly seem like a sacrifice, they will probably be in every competitive list until they get errata to make them worse. 

I guarantee that you will find dissent on AWP. There's a 250+ comment thread there on why new model saturation is bad for the game.  

[Math Mathonwy]

On 11/14/2017 at 1:51 PM, Myyrä said:

I don't think role saturation is that much of a question of good or bad. It's just unavoidable in a miniature game. The companies have to develop new products to sell stuff to their existing customers. The only way you could avoid role saturation in a situation like that is to forbid using older models or create entirely new roles for models all the time, both of which would more or less equate to creating a whole new game periodically.

You can kinda combat it somewhat by introducing more and more factions. Eden and Guild Ball seem to be taking this route. It doesn't solve the problem completely and does mean that a given faction gets few releases each year but it is one possible design direction.

[Angelshard]

As long as they fulfill their roles in different ways I think it's fine. Gupps and terror tots are a great example. 

I only have an issue with this when one model is clearly better than the alternatives for every master that can take it.

If the model is better for one or even four masters, fine. 

I'm more worried about the difference between factions being watered out As their strengths are introduced to the other factions and they get models that remove their weaknesses.

[Myyrä]

3 hours ago, Math Mathonwy said:

You can kinda combat it somewhat by introducing more and more factions. Eden and Guild Ball seem to be taking this route. It doesn't solve the problem completely and does mean that a given faction gets few releases each year but it is one possible design direction.

I see that more as transferring the problem from the model level to the faction level, which isn't exactly the same as solving the problem. They face more or less the same difficulties with balancing the new models and whatnot.

[edopersichetti]

On 11/14/2017 at 6:51 AM, Myyrä said:

I don't think role saturation is that much of a question of good or bad. It's just unavoidable in a miniature game. The companies have to develop new products to sell stuff to their existing customers. The only way you could avoid role saturation in a situation like that is to forbid using older models or create entirely new roles for models all the time, both of which would more or less equate to creating a whole new game periodically.

I think role saturation definitely isn't a bad thing for the player of the game. Models in miniature games are more than just their rules and functionality in the game. They also have the corresponding miniatures, and most miniature game players enjoy getting new cool miniatures. Having an overlap in their roles in the game just gives the player more alternatives to choose from, and if the game rules are reasonably well balanced that also means that players can choose their minis based on their aesthetics as well.

It's unfortunately quite difficult to keep the rules of the models reasonably well balanced. I'd say Wyrd has been doing quite a good job there (while GW for example has not). However, like I already said, role saturation is unavoidable. The game creators could choose to bitch and moan about it, but that wouldn't change anything. It's just a challenge you have to live with. It's up to you whether you choose to see it as opportunity to test the limits of your creativity or just an unsurmountable obstacle that eventually ruins all miniature games.

Man, I don't usually agree with you, but here you are just spot on.

In my limited experience, bloat and role saturation is unavoidable and it is only a matter of time before M2E reaches that stage. IMHO we're pretty close already. What will happen after that (new ruleset, new factions, faction reshuffling etc.) is up for debate, GW pushed it to the limit time and time again until they were forced to kill it off entirely since they no longer knew what to do or how to save the situation (talking about the disastrous death of 8th edition and Age of Sigmar, here).

@Math Mathonwy yes, this is one possible route and actually the one that would trouble me the least, so I hope this is what Wyrd is gonna go for in the future.