Development Info Josh Sawyer on Utility and Balance in Game Design

[Hormalakh]

And dumbass, stop treating DnD like the holy grail. There are better systems.

Regardless, Sawyer often talks about DnD in a positive light. I'm pretty sure he likes it.

Apparently he's been playing it since high school and hasn't stopped. He's very knowledgeable about the game.

 

[Infinitron]

Yes, the people who champion Fallout-like systems on the grounds of "choice" aren't correctly articulating what it is that they truly enjoy about those systems.

It's a roguelike thing, really. The challenge of overcoming the obstacles in the world by learning the pitfalls of the system through the lives of numerous characters, until you finally roll up that ultimate character who sees you through to the end. And of course, even he won't be able to do everything optimally, so you try again.

In contrast, the ideal Eternity-like system doesn't have pitfalls. Challenges are overcome by using the system, not by learning it.

 

[Moribund]

Except you only made it up in your head anyone is championing a fallout like system. I'd prefer that but it's not my complaint. You are the one who wants to judge it in terms of fallout, you said it yourself.

Here's the thing: we are not here to listen to some random opinions of a random newfag, and take them as a revelation. Either you do you homework, thoroughly analyze the presented material and come up with relevant argumentation, or you take your butthurt somewhere and deal with it on your own. After observing you throughout this thread I can safely say that you can into hubris and self-rightous fury against "heretics", but I really cannot find anything relevant to what Sawyer said - everything you argue against is your own creation in your own head.

No, you do your homeworks. I think it's you and mangoose who are the dumb ones.

It's wrong for me to comment about the news post, but it's fine to comment on my comments. Why don't you worry about your own opinion if you have one.

 

[Moribund]

It's hopeless. Even the mention of catering to a braindead gamer like Brennecke can't get through to him. It's time to pull the plug.

 

[Infinitron]

Meaning there is NO challenge other than combat challenge.

First of all, yes, this a combat-centric type of game. That's not a bad word.

Second, you could also consider that there is a "challenge" in strategically navigating through the game's intricate choices and consequences and reputation systems. Trying to foresee what will happen to achieve your desired result in the game's story. That's a non-combat challenge of sorts, which can also tie in with your stats and skills - it's not a purely CYOA thing.

IE games were challenging, because if you fucked your build up, you were squished. Learning to minimize the problems (not optimize or power-build) was a part of the challenge.

Not to the same extent as Fallout. Additional party members as well as item usage could help you finish those games even with a gimped main PC.

 

[Mrowak]

Except you only made it up in your head anyone is championing a fallout like system. I'd prefer that but it's not my complaint. You are the one who wants to judge it in terms of fallout, you said it yourself.

Here's the thing: we are not here to listen to some random opinions of a random newfag, and take them as a revelation. Either you do you homework, thoroughly analyze the presented material and come up with relevant argumentation, or you take your butthurt somewhere and deal with it on your own. After observing you throughout this thread I can safely say that you can into hubris and self-rightous fury against "heretics", but I really cannot find anything relevant to what Sawyer said - everything you argue against is your own creation in your own head.

No, you do your homeworks. I think it's you and mangoose who are the dumb ones.

It's wrong for me to comment about the news post, but it's fine to comment on my comments. Why don't you worry about your own opinion if you have one.

Don't be edgy. Learn to read and to listen. Because right now you hear only you shrill angry voice. And honestly this is something we can do away with. We don't need another whiner who just snivels and complains over pointless shit. You see only what you want to see, regardless of the facts. You hypothesise about something without any ground for your thesis - suddently magically the game will turn out to be shit, because it doesn't fit your paradigm. 'k, but why should I care about your paradigm? It's not certainly the only correct one as proved by countless subgenres of RPGs and multitude of successful solutions.

That someone tries to "balance" a game? Well, godspeed to him. He may actually come up with something creative, that goes past old, stale formulae. We will wait and see how well he will accomplish it. Coming up with wild prophecies of doom, without any grounds will lead us nowhere. That's all there is to it. End of story.

Don't be a newfag, FFS.

 

[Infinitron]

WTF, did you sleep tonight? What do those responses have to do with what I wrote?

 

[Captain Shrek]

What don't you understand?

 

[Mrowak]

Yes, the people who champion Fallout like systems on the grounds of "choice" aren't correctly articulating what it is that they truly enjoy about those systems.

It's a roguelike thing, really. The challenge of overcoming the obstacles in the world by learning the pitfalls of the system through the lives of numerous characters, until you finally roll up that ultimate character who sees you through to the end. And of course, even he won't be able to do everything optimally, so you try again.

In contrast, the ideal Eternity like system doesn't have pitfalls. Challenges are overcome by using the system, not learning it.

Meaning there is NO challenge other than combat challenge. Even there it's on cooldown.

Dungeon Crawlers beg to differ. Legend of Grimrock FTW!!!

Are you even listening to yourself?

IE games were challenging, because if you fucked your build up, you were squished.

There were builds in IE games? I thought builds were all about picking class, then favourite weapon, and then sticking to them *throughout the entire fucking game*. In IE games (with the excception of Icewind Dale 2) builds were close to non-existent. Unless you mean party composition. But then again in your choice there was no choice at all - everyone and their dog knew that standard cookie-cutter AD&D party would outperform any other variant there was. So again the choice was between being awesome and being inferior.

So how again making all builds viable is a bad thing?

Learning to minimize the problems (not optimize or power-build) was a part of the challenge. I guess that Adam Brenneckes of the world can now longer have the set of cognitive functions to "beat" a computer game like BG2 or IWD2 on normal difficulty.

One more time: this is not about making every build work for every challenge. Josh stated exactly that. This is about making every build work for some challenges and finding alternative solutions to them. C&C!! It's simple: you don't make builds to overcome challenges you have no idea you'll face (unless you metagame) but faced with the situation you come up with solution that fits your setup... like in real world. I know, shocking concept. But that's how PnP works and I don't see a reason why cRPGs could not follow the suit.

 

[Mangoose]

It's wrong for me to comment about the news post, but it's fine to comment on my comments. Why don't you worry about your own opinion if you have one.

Because you're a fucking fruitcake. "Don't hurt my opinion!!!"

 

[Captain Shrek]

snip.

Wow.

If there is no problem in builds/party composition, then were is the issue that Sawyer mentions coming from? You haven't still watched the video have you?

 

[Mrowak]

snip.

Wow.

If there is no problem in builds/party composition, then were is the issue that Sawyer mentions coming from? You haven't still watched the video have you?

No, I rewatched it an hour ago and still stand by what I argued. It's you who makes up the entire narrative around it.

 

[Captain Shrek]

snip.

Wow.

If there is no problem in builds/party composition, then were is the issue that Sawyer mentions coming from? You haven't still watched the video have you?

No, I rewatched it an hour ago and still stand up by what I argued. It's you who makes up the entire narrative around it.

o_O

 

[Infinitron]

The thing about Fallout-like games is that to an extent they rely on the new player's ignorance of the system.

The game's most interesting moments come when the player is forced to face the challenges of the wasteland with a sub-optimal character, because he hasn't yet learned how to maximize his performance. That can lead to some tense moments, probably more tense than anything you'll ever get in a more "balanced" game.

Too bad it doesn't last, because after you've learned the system, you create The Perfect Character and start shooting people in the eyes. In contrast, the challenges of a balanced game have more longevity. They don't diminish as much after you've learned the system.

 

[Moribund]

I can't replay a game 400 times before the game system gets boring, so it's a bad game.

That's why a new game system is theoretically good, it's a chance to make something new and cool that lets you do that discovery. That's how games work. You learn how to play then master it then move on. When you eliminate that little section, it's not a game any more it's just a chore.

 

[Infinitron]

That is NOT a problem with the character system or the combat mechanics (there are problems there but not these exactly).

That is the problem with AI.

THinka bout it.

Three difficulty levels.

Normal for beginners.

Hard for experts.

Impossible; ironman for masters and AI tailored to suit that difficulty (instead of HP bloat/High DR/ High Regen/ HIGH SR copouts in IE games).

But "Better AI!!" makes everything better. So maybe that's not really a good argument if we're comparing two different gaming paradigms. Both of them would be improved by the better AI, so you're back at square one.

That said, yes, the Fallout-style of game benefits from more punishing difficulty since it increases the time until you master the system. See: Age of Decadence.

 

[Captain Shrek]

That said, yes, the Fallout-style of game benefits from more punishing difficulty since it increases the time until you master the system. See: Age of Decadence.

Since this thread is not about AI there is no reason to go details of that.

It bears mentioning, that NO game is going to give you infinite replayability. Only finite. That will come from TWO factors: Branching storyline (C&C) and braching characters that have separable gameplay (e.g. Arcanum).

>AOD

Exactly.

That was indeed the right direction.

 

[Mrowak]

snip.

Wow.

If there is no problem in builds/party composition, then were is the issue that Sawyer mentions coming from? You haven't still watched the video have you?

No, I rewatched it an hour ago and still stand up by what I argued. It's you who makes up the entire narrative around it.

o_O

Jebus, Christ! It's time to end this. Sawyer mentions the issue of character composition and bunch of other stuff you are interested in. He talks about it for like 5 mins stating what he wants.

On variety of builds and changing gameplay parameters:

[Let's say ] If you can play this race or that race or this class or that class you're gonna find that your gameplay is different (I think that's important, I think that the game should not play the same - that's why we have options: if the options make you play the game exactly the same, then why are those options there 04:20

and they might run into obstacles that are now really really difficult, or they might run into something that used to be hard but now is incredibly easy. 5:10

On the impact of various builds

My job is to make it [balance] into something where it is a difficult choice for the player. And a meaningful choice for the player!.... [choosing class] that should be like... "man, I don't know, let me think about it". And when you get in, you should go "Man, I am really glad I took a paladin for this reason, and I am really not glad I took a paladin for this reason; I am good in these circumstances and I stink in those circumstances"... I get through things but the challenge changes; and the way I get through the things changes. 05:42

Personally I want the player to make choices between "how do I want to be good in combat", which is partially class and partially customisation options within the class and "how do I want to be good outside of combat. And again those should be difficult choices"... You can still have a variety in each category. There are a lot of ways you can build a paladin comatwise and skillwise. And again you can have different party compositions that work better with each other or worse with each other in certain circumstances, and that's cool. If you want to make a party with like 4 rogues and a paladin and ranger - great. That could be cookie but there you go.

In before someone whines that such builds should not succeed in any circumstances. May I remind you that with proper knowledge of the system it is possible, not only to win with every setup but even to solo any game, even notoriously difficult ROA series

Fuck it, listen to everything about balance between classes and differences between them past 8:00.

then pay special attention to:

My goal... my goal is that you just don't dismiss options. Balance does not mean that you view them all as equal. It's that you can at least consider them all, and it's something like a serious consideration... If the answer is "I am gonna just dump that" or "I am never gonna take it" I feel as a designer, I didn't do a very good job designing that. 09:36

I want the player to feel that if the pick an option, a dialogue, whatever, that is reinforced and suppoerted and that it applies to story choices, character building choices. 10:52

Other important quotes:

"Whenever you give options to the player I feel they should have clear and obvious tradeoffs" 0:40

"If you give the player ability to pick certain ability or bonus the content really needs to support that" 0:57

Statement against casualisation:

We shouldn't design the game to people who do not want to engage with the mechanics... but at the same time if we present the player with something and they are actually paying attention it should be kind of clear what's going on and what tradeoffs they are gonna make. 02:23

[/url]

 

[Roguey]

Yes, the people who champion Fallout-like systems on the grounds of "choice" aren't correctly articulating what it is that they truly enjoy about those systems.

It's a roguelike thing, really. The challenge of overcoming the obstacles in the world by learning the pitfalls of the system through the lives of numerous characters, until you finally roll up that ultimate character who sees you through to the end. And of course, even he won't be able to do everything optimally, so you try again.

How to win Fallout: Make a character that's really good at combat (preferably guns, so high agility and perception, and tag small guns), hold off on putting any points into supplementary skills until you're pretty sure you need them.

Now actually trying to play a character concept, that's more difficult.

 

[Delterius]

Now actually trying to play a character concept, that's more difficult.

This reminds me the larping thread.

Someone would say that they would pick even worthless/mostly useless skills if only to be consistent with a character concept, calling it roleplaying.

Another person would accuse larping on sole grounds that he knows those skills are useless and don't affect the game at all.

And both would be right, creating and developing a character following a concept is roleplaying, but when the game fails to give you some bang for your buck, or at least adequately react to those choices, then you're larping, that is roleplaying without a connection with the game - a less than ideal situation.

Essentially, I'm arguing that giving every skill \o\o\some/o/o/* spotlight reduces larping. It would be like a magical world where Skyrim is 2 thirds its size and more adequately reacts to the player's choices.

Furthermore, allowing every choice at character creation being useful is in line with the Infinity Engine games. True, its not like most of them had skills, but you had to actually make an effort to create a useless character, or even party.

*Read: you don't actually win the game in character creation: skills may at times make some combat encounters easier, or sometimes allow you to avoid combat, but never the entire game. I doubt they even have the resources for that.

 

[Roguey]

You could make suboptimal choices when it came to weapon proficiencies, which is entirely on the fault of the developers since there's no way to predict how supported your weapon choice will be. Though if you've played enough fantasy RPGs you know longswords will always be well-supported, with the rare exception of Torment which had a "NO SWORDS" policy. You couldn't even have a sword proficiency you could train there so it was fine.

AD&D's utterly terrible stat system is the biggest reason why it's difficult to make a useless character. Even though the rules aren't transparent enough in character creation and require looking through a manual that's full of flat-out incorrect/unexplained information, a lot of those numbers do nothing so you'll be fine for the most part.

 

[Delterius]

Actually, if I remember well, the exception was those few weapons which were 'well-supported' with more powerful/interesting variants of the less interesting "+1 or 2 <weapon>" - of which there were in all of the game's proficiencies. At least as far as vanilla BG, which is the only one that I recently replayed. The expansion added more powerful quarterstaves and the like.

But even then, the difference is marginal, I think. What won combat encounters in the IE games were spells and magical item-buffs.

EDIT: Nonetheless, there's a abyss between a weapon proficiency that is less useful and a skill that isn't ever tested by the game.

 

[Captain Shrek]

You could make suboptimal choices when it came to weapon proficiencies, which is entirely on the fault of the developers.

Easily mitigated by:

1) Making it obvious in game what skills are useful in what context thus prompting the player to play by their strengths and not their weakness.
2) Making all provided skills equally useful when heavily invested in.

 

[Delterius]

You could make suboptimal choices when it came to weapon proficiencies, which is entirely on the fault of the developers.

Easily mitigated by:

1) Making it obvious in game what skills are useful in what context thus prompting the player to play by their strengths and not their weakness.
2) Making all provided skills equally useful when heavily invested in.

Wouldn't a skill's usefulness be obvious when such a context is reached?

Wouldn't heavy investment be useless if said contexts do not actually exist?

Rather, wouldn't it be obvious, at character creation, that a skill such as diplomacy (or most every skill that the developer will bother to include) might be useful in a deep game world, the only thing disproving that wether the game world is deep enough or not?

 

[Delterius]

You are trying to connect PnP to cRPGs. I would call upon mondblut to explain to you, that it is NOT a PnP system in a computer game that is evaluating how good are you at "roleplaying". If you actually think about it, bards and rogues have no business in a game where combat is inevitable. I hope that people who profess roleplaying make their bard characters run away or suffer the undying pangs of their hypocritical opinions.

Not the bards and rogues I could create in those Infinity Engine games, making use of their abilities, both in combat and otherwise, was roleplaying.

Do disregard the 'how?' question, I misread the quote you responded to.