Development Info Josh Sawyer on Utility and Balance in Game Design

[Mrowak]

That's exactly what his New Vegas mod was about : enforcing balance and meaningful choices in character building. If you want to judge him, judge him on that, not on buzzwords or some expression that somehow pushes your hate button.

If everything is equally useful, then it's useless to make choices in the first place.

It all depends on circumstances. Josh only claims that each character skill and ability should be useful in certain circumstances. For example, if the player invests points in Medicine and no in Diplomacy, he should become an expert surgeon which will let him find alternative solutions to quests, while not being allowed to take most optimal option on Charisma based one.

At no point the player should think "oh bugger, investing all those points in Medicine was a waste"... which happened frequently in Fallout and Arcanum.

And I'm saying that the way it was done in Fallout and Arcanum is better than what Sawyer is proposing here. The player should be allowed to make, if not even tricked into making, wrong choices so that the choices he makes have meaning and long term consequences. Otherwise, you're just sliding towards Bioware-style choices, whether you want to admit it or not.

You are talking about Metagaming which is the evil incarnate, the bane of all RPGs in existence. In your view the game should teach the player "either you play it one way or you fail". Which defeats whole purpose of C&C and undermines the very idea of RPGs

Making choices is hard because, if you make wrong choices, there is a real possibility of bad shit happening.

Newsflash. The player is not clairvoyant. He cannot know that in the game there are no uses for, e.g. Medicine skill but are plenty for Diplomacy.

It's ok if the player has made a dumb decision - went into a diplomatic situation with an Expert Surgeon that cannot into social encounters. That's consequential and I think Josh agrees it's commendable, However, the game should provide content for his Expert Surgeon built as well - because that's what the skill was for. Sure out character won't be able to intimidate some bandits, but he will excel in other places a diplomat would be hopeless at. There should be content out there on the virtue that mechanics was implemented.

No, the game shouldn't provide valid solutions for all player choices. The player should be thought ( by carrot or, if necessarily, stick ) that making choices is serious business and, if he fucks up, he'll suffer.

My idea does not contradict yours here. I didn' t say that using skill X and skill Y, which have little to do with each other should bring the same result. Quite the opposite.

Consider two different quest - a diplomatic and medical one. Let's say our surgeon went into diplomatic quest but lacking skill he botched it - he fucked up because the knowledge of human anatomy is not very useful in this situation. Perhaps there are going the be some serious consequences for this fuckup. Perhaps the surgeon shouldn't have taken the quest at all - he should have been mindful of his limitations.

But there's this medical quest. Our surgeon approaches it warily. However, because he knows a lot about medicine he completes it in the best way possible. Only character of his expertise in medicine could solve it. An master diplomat would be hopeless and the results of this fuckup would be as (or more) serious as in the previous example (but not the same!). I stress here - we are talking about two *different* quests, and not the same one solved in a number of ways, in which we get the same outcome no matter what.

Here we achieve what you wanted. We teach the player about the impact of C&C, but we get rid of idiotic metagaming (only skill XXX is useful, YYY is a waste of time).

 

[Cosmo]

2. Make the game completely mechanics driven, based on emergent gameplay. What I'm advocating here is, essentially, randomly generating the whole game world and letting the player loose to do as he pleases within the constraints of the game world. This hasn't been seriously tried yet, so we don't have an example of how well this would work.

That's absolutely not the type of game Obsidian does, and you know it. So again, how are your criticisms relevant ?

 

[sea]

And I'm saying that the way it was done in Fallout and Arcanum is better than what Sawyer is proposing here. The player should be allowed to make, if not even tricked into making, wrong choices so that the choices he makes have meaning and long term consequences. Otherwise, you're just sliding towards Bioware-style choices, whether you want to admit it or not.

So what constitutes "meaningful choice and long term consequences"? Is it "shit, I just wasted 30 fucking hours because the game suddenly became a combat grind at the end and my diplomacy skills are now useless"? Great fucking game design.

No, the game shouldn't provide valid solutions for all player choices. The player should be thought ( by carrot or, if necessarily, stick ) that making choices is serious business and, if he fucks up, he'll suffer.

Because that's what games are all about: making the player suffer. Did you work on Bad Rats, by any chance?

 

[J_C]

Stop listening to him then.

This is the key to understanding J_C. Don't like what you're seeing/hearing?

Stop watching/listening! (buy anyway ofc)

No, if I buy it, I'm interested in it, and I won't stop watching/listening.

 

[Hormalakh]

This is completely different than what I thought balance meant...

In any case, all this theorizing that Sawyer is doing better be implemented more than 8 months in advance so that when he play-tests and finds out that the game does play like dullsville, that he has enough time to change it and not give us a barely finished, bug-ridden game.

 

[l3loodAngel]

Rule of thumb, guys: Usefulness does not imply perfect balance. All skills being "useful" doesn't mean they'll be equally applicable in each and every case.

Don't spoil the fun. Option's like choosing racial enemy gibberling in BG2 and specializing in Katanas in BG1 is what made the series great. Besides what will they bitch about if "useful" skills like survival, gambling and throwing will be absent from the game?

 

[Infinitron]

 

[Surf Solar]

And I'm saying that the way it was done in Fallout and Arcanum is better than what Sawyer is proposing here. The player should be allowed to make, if not even tricked into making, wrong choices so that the choices he makes have meaning and long term consequences. Otherwise, you're just sliding towards Bioware-style choices, whether you want to admit it or not.

So what constitutes "meaningful choice and long term consequences"? Is it "shit, I just wasted 30 fucking hours because the game suddenly became a combat grind at the end and my diplomacy skills are now useless"? Great fucking game design.

No, the game shouldn't provide valid solutions for all player choices. The player should be thought ( by carrot or, if necessarily, stick ) that making choices is serious business and, if he fucks up, he'll suffer.

Because that's what games are all about: making the player suffer. Did you work on Bad Rats, by any chance?

Because the constant "you are awesone player!!!!111" moments in modern games are so much better, right? I see nothing wrong with what you quoted, for sure not warranted to post a retard emoticon.

 

[Grunker]

Rule of thumb, guys: Usefulness does not imply perfect balance. All skills being "useful" doesn't mean they'll be equally applicable in each and every case.

Don't spoil the fun. Option's like choosing racial enemy gibberling in BG2 and specializing in Katanas in BG1 is what made the series great. Besides what will they bitch about if "useful" skills like survival, gambling and throwing will be absent from the game?

I don't have an opinion with regards to your jab at your opponents, but Celestial Fury is perhaps one of the best items in the entire game of BG2. More than enough reason to specialize in Katanas.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

specializing in Katanas in BG1

the art of redding

 

[Grunker]

But that makes no sense. You can't specialize in Katanas in BG1, BG1 has category specialization (e.g. 'Large Swords'). So unless you mod it there's no way to do that.

 

[Infinitron]

But that makes no sense. You can't specialize in Katanas in BG1, BG1 has category specialization (e.g. 'Large Swords'). So unless you mod it there's no way to do that.

Well, in BGT/TuTu/EE

 

[Captain Shrek]

He is a bit confused (but not entirely) about Character trait and OPTIONS.

Traits are not options. Traits are Character creation element. Options are different.

Taking poetry STILL should provide you with an option to go wrong with it.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...-basics-character-creation-progression.69522/

I know, TL;DR. But distinguishes Character from gameplay Options.

 

[Mrowak]

And I'm saying that the way it was done in Fallout and Arcanum is better than what Sawyer is proposing here. The player should be allowed to make, if not even tricked into making, wrong choices so that the choices he makes have meaning and long term consequences. Otherwise, you're just sliding towards Bioware-style choices, whether you want to admit it or not.

So what constitutes "meaningful choice and long term consequences"? Is it "shit, I just wasted 30 fucking hours because the game suddenly became a combat grind at the end and my diplomacy skills are now useless"? Great fucking game design.

No, the game shouldn't provide valid solutions for all player choices. The player should be thought ( by carrot or, if necessarily, stick ) that making choices is serious business and, if he fucks up, he'll suffer.

Because that's what games are all about: making the player suffer. Did you work on Bad Rats, by any chance?

Because the constant "you are awesone player!!!!111" moments in modern games are so much better, right? I see nothing wrong with what you quoted, for sure not warranted to post a retard emoticon.

:facepalm: Way to miss the point.

A question to you: how exactly selecting the skills the game wants you to select, without you being able to tell how useful it is makes you awesome/shit player? It's the question of blind luck or metagaming. No real gameplay is involved. So how about we actually introduce skills that are useful in some circumstances and then let the player pick the ones that will help him solve given problem. That's what it is about - usefulness of tools (skills) at your disposal in appropriate contexts.

Every other approach leads to linear nonsense.

 

[Pelvis Knot]

specializing in Katanas in BG1

the art of redding

Specializing in katanas in bg1 isn't possible, there is only large swords and other such general categories


Also, Lionheart is the best game ever, in regard to C&C: you either choose a combat build, or you suffer consequences, idiot. You should've known your sugary tongue is useless after Barcelona

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...-basics-character-creation-progression.69522/

I know, TL;DR. But distinguishes Character from gameplay Options.

Your point aside, but constantly linking your own posts makes you seem a bit dumb: if your posts are so good and relevant, surely somebody else will remember and link them.

 

[Hormalakh]

I don't necessarily disagree with him and I do think metagaming is a dumb way to play a game but I am still worried about implementation. It seems to me -and I could be absolutely wrong about this - that his implementation will severely limit complexity in the game. That is my main issue. I'm not saying he's going to fail, but the game should still be complex.

The whole point that these issues were not taken in the context of a party is interesting. I remember arguing for balance, but to be honest, I don't really have a good answer for balance in the context of a party dynamic. Fallout is not a good starting approach to take, because the player dynamics revolve around only one person.

So my question would be, are certain non-combat skills limited to certain classes? Can mages only take poetry, languages, and alchemy while thieves can taking prowling, backstab, and disarmtrap/lockpick. Or is everyone going to be given a bunch of the same skills to pick from?

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

specializing in Katanas in BG1

the art of redding

Specializing in katanas in bg1 isn't possible, there is only large swords and other such general categories


Also, Lionheart is the best game ever, in regard to C&C: you either choose a combat build, or you suffer consequences, idiot. You should've known your sugary tongue is useless after Barcelona

Thanks, I know that. Nevertheless he said BG1 not BG2. (referring probably BGT or TUTU)

 

[Mrowak]

specializing in Katanas in BG1

the art of redding

Specializing in katanas in bg1 isn't possible, there is only large swords and other such general categories

FFS people, quit reading between the lines. It was a theoretical example to illustrate the point. A better one: a game with a Mountaineering skill, except that there are no mountains in the entire campaign.

 

[GarfunkeL]

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...-basics-character-creation-progression.69522/

I know, TL;DR. But distinguishes Character from gameplay Options.

Your point aside, but constantly linking your own posts makes you seem a bit dumb: if your posts are so good and relevant, surely somebody else will remember and link them.

Since everyone thinks he's a retard, no-one would ever link his silly mini-essays. What's a poor, misunderstood genius to do?

As for Sawyer's ideas, I can see where the "this will be shit"-crowd is coming, though I think they are exaggerating. Having uses for each and every skill is good and nowhere did I spot that JS is arguing that every skill should be equally important/useful in every situation.

 

[Captain Shrek]

[


Your point aside, but constantly linking your own posts makes you seem a bit dumb: if your posts are so good and relevant, surely somebody else will remember and link them.

Don't get your panties in a knot. I am not linking them because they are great stuff or anything. Just linking them because I do not want to make huge arguments again on issues where arguments have been already made.

 

[Pelvis Knot]

specializing in Katanas in BG1

the art of redding

Specializing in katanas in bg1 isn't possible, there is only large swords and other such general categories

FFS people, quit reading between the lines. It was a theoretical example to illustrate the point. A better one: a game with a Mountaineering skill, except that there are no mountains in the entire campaign.

I understood your point, but nitpicking is a tradition here.

I'm playing RoA:BoD for the first time, and I'm glad I read some of the threads here. There are many skills not only of questionable use, but literally unimplemented in the game. Likewise for some items. I'm not sure how is that supposed to be good design, where you could throw away half your skill points for absolutely no gain.

 

[Mrowak]

specializing in Katanas in BG1

the art of redding

Specializing in katanas in bg1 isn't possible, there is only large swords and other such general categories

FFS people, quit reading between the lines. It was a theoretical example to illustrate the point. A better one: a game with a Mountaineering skill, except that there are no mountains in the entire campaign.

I understood your point, but nitpicking is a tradition here.

I'm playing RoA:BoD for the first time, and I'm glad I read some of the threads here. There are many skills not only of questionable use, but literally unimplemented in the game. Likewise for some items. I'm not sure how is that supposed to be good design, where you could throw away half your skill points for absolutely no gain.

BTW, I am considering giving Star Trail another spin. There were some nice RoA advice threads on the 'Dex but I can't find them. Mayhap you have some links good sir?

 

[Harold]

The more I hear from Sawyer the more I'm convinced Eternity will be crap.

Care to give some details as to why?

Yes. It actually doesn't matter what he's on about, clowndowns or regenerating stamina (it's not health regen!) for me it all sounds like cop-outs to justifiy the streamlining they'll employ to make the game more welcoming. YMMV.

Just take his latest waffling about how challenging combat encounters must have a "variety" of solutions (and the inept and inaccurate comparisons to chess). Let me tell you something: if there IS an ACTUAL problem, odds are the number of solutions is very small.

If you have a variety of ways to win an encounter, odds are there is no problem.

For me it looks like Eternity is shaping up fine to become a rtwp, cool-down spamming turd devoid of combat challenge. sry. Hope I do err.

I get the impression he's using clowndowns and stamina regen to prevent rest spamming and potion spamming, also low health high stamina will still get you killed so I don't have a problem with it. I'm willing to see what he can come up with, though I would've preferred a Vancian system with restricted resting (seriously Obsidian it's not even that hard to come up with a lore reason for graying out the rest button for noobs, look at me go: The soul inside you is restless and you find that, try as you might, you cannot fall asleep/take a breather).

The variety of solutions part - I got the impression he was referring specifically to the way you had to cast breach and/or secret word to dispel enemy mages' protections in BG2 and if you were out of those spells you would've had a much tougher time. Granted, you could stll beat the mage, but I can see from his pov how that seems like pointless frustration for the average player.

I cannot argue with your ACTUAL problem statement, but I reckon as long as I set my combat challenge expectations somewhere slightly above IWD2 and waaaay below SCSII I won't end up being disappoint.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Let me tell you something: if there IS an ACTUAL problem, odds are the number of solutions is very small.
If you have a variety of ways to win an encounter, odds are there is no problem.

.

I thought about this issue once. How about this?

Games are (almost always) created to be winnable. Thus they always must have some level of artificial difficulty/ease. In order to retain element of challenge in tactical games, they are made to be restrictive in terms of strategies that can succeed. The typical aim of the game is to force the player to create/explore/discover winning strategies. Intuitively speaking, a game that allows a large variety of strategies and a significantly large variety of winning strategies is to be considered good because it provides more quality content overall. I will refer to two of these quantitative ideas often in this discussion:

1) Total number of allowed strategies (TS)
2) Ratio of winnable strategies / losing strategies (RS)

I am hoping that it is obvious that the quality of games can be evaluated with these two numbers. The first is obvious. If the second number is in the range of (1/9 , 1/4) it will be better. Of course some might prefer even lower rate of success, but then TS must go up to compensate for lower values of RS. Please understand, this is a highly simplified descriptor of the real system, since the actual number of losing strategies in typical strategy games are infinite if the player is an idiot. Thus a certain level of smartness is assumed. Also, we are talking about RPG games that do not usually involve a large number of units in action (number of units < 10 ). If the number of units exceed 10-20 then the game is a pure strategy game and much more complex to discuss without further simplifications.

 

[skuphundaku]

And I'm saying that the way it was done in Fallout and Arcanum is better than what Sawyer is proposing here. The player should be allowed to make, if not even tricked into making, wrong choices so that the choices he makes have meaning and long term consequences. Otherwise, you're just sliding towards Bioware-style choices, whether you want to admit it or not.

That was uncalled for.

So what constitutes "meaningful choice and long term consequences"? Is it "shit, I just wasted 30 fucking hours because the game suddenly became a combat grind at the end and my diplomacy skills are now useless"?

Not out of the blue. The player should be given hints and, if he's paying enough attention to what is happening around him in the game world, he should be able to know, or, at least, predict the consequences of his choices. However, if he proceeds with eyes wide shut, then he deserves to suffer. Also, consequences shouldn't be always immediate. A significant amount of all consequences of your actions should happen quite a while after you made the choices (like the long term C&C in The Witcher 1).

No, the game shouldn't provide valid solutions for all player choices. The player should be thought ( by carrot or, if necessarily, stick ) that making choices is serious business and, if he fucks up, he'll suffer.

Because that's what games are all about: making the player suffer. Did you work on Bad Rats, by any chance?

If I want instant gratification, I eat chocolate or icecream. I like RPGs to make me think.