Development Info Josh Sawyer on Utility and Balance in Game Design

[Moribund]

There's an amazing thing you can use to simulate reality and predict the future which never seems to fail. Called a human brain. Hasn't failed me yet.

Yeah because human brains are never wrong.

Once you have the information it shouldn't be that often. Thorvalla showed me most people just can't extrapolate like that, though. Eye opening but sad.

Okay, skyway.

What's a skyway?

 

[Johannes]

You post 10 posts a day, but don't know that after almost 3 months? Cmon.

 

[Moribund]

Post, yes. Read, no.

 

[St. Toxic]

This is not a challenge. This is metagaming, whereby you go to square 1, because you didn't meet the arbitrary goals the game has set you. It's learning not about the gameworld or the game mechanics but of artificial boundaries that limit your character builds "just because" no one bothered to give viability to another set of solutions. Or botched character progression.

So challenges should be entirely transparent and predictable? Going into a combat encounter the player should already know what to expect, yes? Opening a door should be preceded by information on what's on the other side, in case the player accidentally kills himself by acting on incomplete or lacking information? Apparently taking a risk and preparing for any eventuality is meta-gaming.

Again, why should there even be skills there are nearly useless? That are checked 2-3 times in entire campaign, if at all? Either you cut them out and polish what you have or make them meaningful and relevant to the context.

Nah, makes the game too obvious. A ton of nearly useless skills equals a ton of unique encounters and challenges. I mean, we aren't talking about cutting it down to a single skill or say two skills, right, even-though there probably will be a small number of skills that stay viable or op during the entire game. So you're already allowing for comparatively useless skills as long as they have more than a handful of uses. Your argument is essentially rooted in what you personally consider useless and little else.

Not that this isn't a important thing to bring up, but I don't think this is actually Sawyer's intent. Having every skill being a decent investment doesn't mean that every skill can solve every problem and much less that every character/party composition is going to be able to solve every problem.

Well, all the characters have a combat base that they must invest in, on top of secondary skills. If your combat build doesn't get you through a combat encounter (and not due to bad strategy on the player's part) then what's the point behind split skill-pools and forced investment in combat skills?

 

[Infinitron]

So challenges should be entirely transparent and predictable? Going into a combat encounter the player should already know what to expect, yes? Opening a door should be preceded by information on what's on the other side, in case the player accidentally kills himself by acting on incomplete or lacking information? Apparently taking a risk and preparing for any eventuality is meta-gaming.

Don't be retarded. This is not the same thing.

In an RPG, there's a divide between content and systems.

Knowing that the game system is universally useful is not the same thing as knowing all game content in advance.

Nah, makes the game too obvious.

No it doesn't.

 

[mondblut]

You are talking about Metagaming which is the evil incarnate, the bane of all RPGs in existence.

There is no such thing as "metagaming". Knowing the system and being good at making right builds is the only part in a CRPG which constitutes "gaming" in the first place. To suck at a CRPG means to create shit characters. Take that away, and everything that is left is a shitty and extremely windy cartoon with an occasional "watch this or that" branch.

In your view the game should teach the player "either you play it one way or you fail".

If a player plays the game wrong, he fails. That's kinda the definition of a "game", no?

Which defeats whole purpose of C&C and undermines the very idea of RPGs

ITT we discover the Obsidian's version of Awesome Button. "all characters are great and speshul".

 

[St. Toxic]

Don't be retarded. This is not the same thing.

In an RPG, there's a divide between content and systems.

Knowing that the game system is universally useful is not the same thing as knowing all game content in advance.

Right, because having a small set of universally useful skills tells you nothing about what these skills will be used for.

You're also missing the point. Apparently getting your ass handed to you because you didn't know what to expect, according to Mro, = metagaming, the same way finding out which skills are more useful than others is metagaming.

This is metagaming, whereby you go to square 1, because you didn't meet the arbitrary goals the game has set you.

Hey, didn't think that boss would be challenging? Well now that you know, it's all meta from here.

Also,

In an RPG, there's a divide between content and systems.

What? If systems aren't a gateway to experience content, then all skills are useless.

 

[Infinitron]

Right, because having a small set of universally useful skills tells you nothing about what these skills will be used for.

In a game that's not heavily skill-based, it doesn't matter.

Again, read this post. Read it again, and again, and again. Replay IWD2 or NWN or NWN2 after that if you still don't get it.

What? If systems aren't a gateway to experience content, then all skills are useless.

If you say so, bro.

 

[Mrowak]

This is not a challenge.
This is metagaming, whereby you go to square 1, because you didn't meet the arbitrary goals the game has set you. It's learning not about the gameworld or the game mechanics but of artificial boundaries that limit your character builds "just because" no one bothered to give viability to another set of solutions. Or botched character progression.

So challenges should be entirely transparent and predictable? Going into a combat encounter the player should already know what to expect, yes?

No. Unexpected challenge is fine provided that it does not force you to meet arbitrary conditions only certain roles can fulfill and others cannot to progress in any way in the game.

Let's consider this example: 10 hours into the game you face a dragon. Here's the thing - so far you've played a lite-gunslinger with a flair for medicine and diplomacy, which has pushed you forward for better and for worse in the game world. If you were to face the thing head on you'd die, because you lack a) skills and b) equipment.

IFF the player was informed (or could acquire that information but neglected to do so) that they might encounter dragons, and failed to make preparations he has himself to blame. However, even in this situation you could change to the goal of the encounter: instead of "Kill the Dragon", you get "Survive (X turns) or "Escape the dragon by reaching the Southern part of the tunnel". Such simple solution reinforces the importance of character builds, affects gameplay and leaves no player behind - everyone is accommodated, but not everyone can get the same results.

Opening a door should be preceded by information on what's on the other side, in case the player accidentally kills himself by acting on incomplete or lacking information? Apparently taking a risk and preparing for any eventuality is meta-gaming.

Then give the player ability to acquire this information. Yes, there should be option to listen through the door and see if there are any enemies behind it. If he is careless, then the game can punish him howevr it fancies. Taking risk is one thing, acting blind (because the game didn't bother to give you any options) and fitting the right pattern, especially with save/load mechanic is another.

RPGs should avoid this model:

whereby at the beginning you select a bunch of blocks, only to realise that no block fits the given hole. Such sorter games are pretty spastic, and this is part of the reason why for a long time cRPGs were seen as PnP's retarded younger brother.

In PnP DM does create challenges which are manageable to his players and their characters. This is common sense. It is the job of the players to use all those skills they have at their disposal to overcome difficulties. Unless DM is a total dick that enjoys spawning dragons on 2nd level characters, that is.

Now I am not saying that the player ought to be free from responsibilty. If he made a good engineer or doctor who cannot into social situations he should obviously fail all the quests that require diplomatic approach. Perhaps he should learn early on the importantce of his limits and avoid quests that do not fit his character, because he can make the matters worse for others and himself. In fact creating unwinable fights and other challenges is something I strongly support. Provided that by using creatively tools that the player has at his disposal he can achieve *some* results - maybe suboptimal, or catastrophic one, but at least some.

Again, why should there even be skills there are nearly useless? That are checked 2-3 times in entire campaign, if at all? Either you cut them out and polish what you have or make them meaningful and relevant to the context.

Nah, makes the game too obvious. A ton of nearly useless skills equals a ton of unique encounters and challenges. I mean, we aren't talking about cutting it down to a single skill or say two skills, right, even-though there probably will be a small number of skills that stay viable or op during the entire game. So you're already allowing for comparatively useless skills as long as they have more than a handful of uses. Your argument is essentially rooted in what you personally consider useless and little else.

It is rooted in A) The magnitude of using the skill (the impact it has on the gameplay) and B) Frequency of using the skill/item. If A and B have low value then the skills is useless, and has little place there. Putting such skills is just bloating the game.

 

[St. Toxic]

I'll say it again, the problem with most of the Project Eternity-skeptics in this conversation is that they're approaching this game from a Fallout, heavily skill-based perspective, instead of from the D&D 3E CRPG perspective, where skills tended to be just one facet of your character's activity in the game.

But what made you think I was talking about P:E? I'm discussing general design goals. (No way I'm playing any of those shitty games btw.)

No. Unexpected challenge is fine provided that it does not force you to meet arbitrary conditions only certain roles can fulfill and others cannot to progress in any way in the game.

Hey man, if there's unavoidable combat that means you need a viable combat character. Besides, progressing through the game hardly includes side-quests, which can be tailored specifically to skills that are less viable throughout the main quest-line.

Let's consider this example: 10 hours into the game you face a dragon. Here's the thing - so far you've played a lite-gunslinger with a flair for medicine and diplomacy, which has pushed you forward for better and for worse in the game world. If you were to face the thing head on you'd die, because you lack a) skills and b) equipment.

IFF the player was informed (or could acquire that information but neglected to do so) that they might encounter dragons, and failed to make preparations he has himself to blame. However, even in this situation you could change to the goal of the encounter: instead of "Kill the Dragon", you get "Survive (X turns) or "Escape the dragon by reaching the Southern part of the tunnel". Such simple solution reinforces the importance of character builds, affects gameplay and leaves no player behind - everyone is accommodated, but not everyone can get the same results.

Fair enough, but I thought you were arguing that a lite-gunslinger shouldn't be in the game if he can't cope with the challenges thrown at him? This sounds like a good defense of useless skills.

Then give the player ability to acquire this information. Yes, there should be option to listen through the door and see if there are any enemies behind it. If he is careless, then the game can punish him howevr it fancies. Taking risk is one thing, acting blind (because the game didn't bother to give you any options) and fitting the right pattern, especially with save/load mechanic is another.

That's unavoidable, at least if you want there to be any suspense. A game that gives you all the info you need up-front is going to feel pretty stiff. Listening at a door, which is a great mechanic, doesn't necessarily tell you there are pissed off ogres on the other side that could kill you in one hit. Taking a risk and acting blind -- what's the distinction here, really?

Now I am not saying that the player ought to be free from responsibilty. If he made a good engineer or doctor who cannot into social situations he should obviously fail all the quests that require diplomatic approach. Perhaps he should learn early on the importantce of his limits and avoid quests that do not fit his character, because he can make the matters worse for others and himself. In fact creating unwinable fights and other challenges is something I strongly support. Provided that by using creatively tools that the player has at his disposal he can achieve *some* results - maybe suboptimal, or catastrophic one, but at least some.

Which is what I've been saying all along. I also don't see how initial choices in character creation can have such a huge impact on the rest of the game, especially with Infi's 15-30 hours of easy challenges. It should be trivial to move your character into a more viable direction, keeping the starter-skills for the occasion when they are useful. And in a party-game + followers? Sheesh.

It is rooted in A) The magnitude of using the skill (the impact it has on the gameplay) and B) Frequency of using the skill/item. If A and B have low value then the skills is useless, and has little place there. Putting such skills is just bloating the game.

My point exactly. What's a low value in your opinion?

 

[Infinitron]

But what made you think I was talking about P:E? I'm discussing general design goals. (No way I'm playing any of those shitty games btw.)

Oh for fuck's sake trolled again

Look, there are two models for skills.

3E/PE model - skills as a kind of universal toolset
Wasteland/Falllout model - skills as a set of keys for unlocking unique content in the gameworld that the player must be smart enough to gather

If you hate the first model, then fine, we have nothing to discuss. But at least recognize its existence instead of scratching your head like a retard "WHY THIS GAME NO WOERK LIKE FALLOUT THIS MAEKS NO SENSE"

 

[nihil]

If everything is equally useful, then it's useless to make choices in the first place. Making choices is hard because, if you make wrong choices, there is a real possibility of bad shit happening. This "balance in everything, at all costs" thing is misguided, to say the least.

Wait, so you're advocating useless skills? To me, the ideal way to do skills is to make the player, in a given situation, stop and think "what am I good at? Can this situation be solved with my skills? How do I best apply them?" For some situations, you would have to give up with your current skill set, for others, you would come up with a solution.

Sawyer wants all classes to be capable in combat. This is understandable (and probably a good thing) since the game will be about tactical combat. Giving players the option to create a character who can't fight would've been somewhat like giving the option in Mario Bros to select a character who can't jump.

So in combat, it will be a matter of "how", not "if". Outside of combat, it will be "if", then "how". Ideally.

EDIT: Unretarded.

Look, there are two models for skills.

3E/PE model - skills as a kind of universal toolset
Wasteland/Falllout model - skills as a set of keys for unlocking unique content in the gameworld that the player must be smart enough to gather

They can be combined. It sounds like (and I hope) P:E will do that, in that combat skills are mandatory, but skills like lockpicking or lore (sometimes) will unlock specific content not available to parties without those skills.

 

[Harold]

Catching up with this thread made my poor head hurt.
I'll just add that the fact that Sawyer thinks certain battles of BG2 were unwinnable without a wizard is a very bad omen. And I was so fucking cautiously optimistic about the combat in PE too

 

[St. Toxic]

If you hate the first model, then fine, we have nothing to discuss. But at least recognize its existence instead of scratching your head like a retard "WHY THIS GAME NO WOERK LIKE FALLOUT THIS MAEKS NO SENSE"

Hey, don't put words in my mouth. So, there won't be any unique content in PE that's unlocked by having the appropriate skill, so skills really mean nothing. But is that really an inherent aspect of the 3E model?

 

[Infinitron]

I sent Josh another question on his Formspring, this time about the game's skill model. Let's see if he replies.

 

[Moribund]

I'll just add that the fact that Sawyer thinks certain battles of BG2 were unwinnable without a wizard is a very bad omen.

But an all mage party casting nothing but fireballs is the ultimate DPS dude!

Good catch, there's about a dozen things in there that make my head spin.

I want so bad for old style RC cola to be made again. Now a guy has a 4 million budget to do it and all he talks about his how much he hates carbonation, how much better corn syrup tastes than sucrose, and the proper salt concentrations.

 

[Mrowak]

I'll just add that the fact that Sawyer thinks certain battles of BG2 were unwinnable without a wizard is a very bad omen.

But an all mage party casting nothing but fireballs is the ultimate DPS dude!

Good catch, there's about a dozen things in there that make my head spin.

I want so bad for old style RC cola to be made again. Now a guy has a 4 million budget to do it and all he talks about his how much he hates carbonation, how much better corn syrup tastes than sucrose, and the proper salt concentrations.

And then out of all this hatred Planescape: Torment was born... true story, brah.

 

[nihil]

So, there won't be any unique content in PE that's unlocked by having the appropriate skill, so skills really mean nothing.

Wait, is that confirmed? It sounds unbelievably stupid.

 

[Lancehead]

If you hate the first model, then fine, we have nothing to discuss. But at least recognize its existence instead of scratching your head like a retard "WHY THIS GAME NO WOERK LIKE FALLOUT THIS MAEKS NO SENSE"

Hey, don't put words in my mouth. So, there won't be any unique content in PE that's unlocked by having the appropriate skill, so skills really mean nothing. But is that really an inherent aspect of the 3E model?

I would think Sawyer's party build viability argument applies only to combat encounters because combat is the big focus here. If a combat scenario requires certain party composition and/or abilities then you might be looking at a combat puzzle than tactics. Sawyer wants to avoid that, I think, and focus on how to best use your party's abilities rather than spend time getting the best abilities. Though for this to be effective, the enemies need to really challenging. And it's likely that non-combat solutions would be specific to certain skills/abilities, more locked-in.

 

[Infinitron]

So, there won't be any unique content in PE that's unlocked by having the appropriate skill, so skills really mean nothing.

Wait, is that confirmed? It sounds unbelievably stupid.

Of course it's not confirmed. Likely the game will have some amount of skill-exclusive content. But collecting skills to unlock content won't be the basis of the gameplay to the same degree as in Fallout.

But anyway, ask yourself, how stupid is it really? BG1 didn't have skills. BG2 didn't have skills. IWD1 didn't have skills. Planescape Torment didn't have skills. These are the inspirations for Project Eternity. Any skill-based goodness you get on top of that is really just a bonus.

 

[nihil]

But now that Project Eternity does have skills, I have some expectations of them. As you say, though, likely there will be skill-exclusive content. Especially since Tim Cain seems to be heavily involved in their design.

It's been a while, but didn't Torment kind of have skills in that it made lots of checks against stats? I.e. you could try things and fail/miss content depending on your character building choices. (Until you maxed out your stats with tattoos, that is.)

 

[Harold]

^ Stat checks <> Skill checks. For instance, Sawyer would like to completely remove dialogue skills and return to the stat check model of Torment. This is one area where I totally agree with him.

 

[Infinitron]

Yes, stats are different than skills in that they are more, well, static. Even if you can improve them throughout the game, it's a much more gradual process.

It's not like in Fallout where you pump 20% into your Science skill on level-up and VOILA, you are now a science whiz who can activate the computer and solve the sidequest.

BTW, it's the same thing for skills in the D&D 3E games. Each individual skill there is capped by your level, so skill usage is based more on whether or not you possess the skill at all, and not on pumping up the correct skill to the correct threshold.

 

[nihil]

Harold, yes, that's something I too could get behind, for this game. But I would like a variety of active, non-combat skills, of the "skilldex" type in Fallout.

And yes, there's certainly a difference between stat checks and passive skill checks, but in some ways they serve the same purpose.

 

[Anthony Davis]

Yes, Josh was his replacement. By many accounts, he saved the NWN2 project. Ask Anthony Davis about it.

True story. Chris Avellone and Josh sawyer replaced Ferret with about 4-6 months left in the project.