Development Info Josh Sawyer on Utility and Balance in Game Design

[Moribund]

They just don't offer much benefit, comparatively to Small Guns, Speech, or Lockpick on a per-point basis. Outdoorsman further lacks any in-dialog options or the ability to be applied to in-game objects and characters. It's certainly the weaker of the skills, up there with gambling and trading.

This discussion seems to be entirely about balancing things out, though. If Outdoorsman isn't as awesome and used as often as Lockpicking is, nor offers similar gains as Lockpicking, it fucking sucks, should be removed, and the designer shot. Wahhh. o_O

But why should they offer as much point for point? What are you balancing this against?

You don't have that much usefulness in tracking for rangers in DnD or for Bards in combat but that doesn't make those characters useless or not worth playing. Some things are just for flavor.

Like I said obviously if you put everything in doctor and outdoorsman you gonna fail so there's no real problem there. But the outdoorsman is definitely worth putting points in later just for convenience's sake. Of course this will trigger some sperging about manuals, but again so what. If you want to play only in most efficient manner, why put points in that anyway. Who would put points into anything but weapons when they are level 1???

If there's anything to complain about it's that fighting is too much based on skill points. So your high int character is the best fighter I would definitely change that, and I'd change that your weapons have 3 separate skills that don't overlap. You get 200 points in small arms then pick up an energy weapon and shoot yourself in the foot? Not likely.

Take them out of combat equation altogether use your level to some extent, and your stats, and it works out much better. Ahem, like DnD, where that works out pretty well.

And like typical RPG there's way more places to use picklocks than is really plausible.

Speech is way overused, too.

Take skills out of the to-hit equation and no one would probably complain too much. Well, some would anyway but the complaints are already pretty retardo as it is. Only DraQ and Sawyer would complain then.

 

[DraQ]

Take skills out of the to-hit equation and no one would probably complain too much.

As long as it's still determined by stats and as long as skills don't turn into retarded damage scaler.

 

[Infinitron]

There are two kinds of people in this world, my friend. Those for whom learning to avoid broken builds is an integral part of playing a CRPG, and those who want CRPGs to actually be fun.

 

[DraQ]

Random trial and error is fun.

In after typical Captain Shrek post.

 

[Broseph]

Captain Shrek is a shitposter, news at 11.

 

[Grunker]

There are two kinds of people in this world, my friend. Those for whom learning to avoid broken builds is an integral part of playing a CRPG, and those who want CRPGs to actually be fun.

I'm not sure what Shrek is saying, but this is bullshit. Knowing not to take outdoorsman and doctor = hidden information, that you can never divine yourself except through trial and error. Knowing that you shouldn't take the talent that gives you +50% to area of effect spells when you're making a magic missile specialist? Well, you're able to tell that.

Very obvious example of course, but the point remains that what Josh is doing wrong here is not making "everything useful" on its own (aka not making another outdoorsman or doctor). The problem is that he is also, in a completely unrelated design decision, trying to remove the rewards of constructing good builds with choices that work together in a greater whole. This is obvious, because if no choice within the system is better than another choice, then there is no 'good' choice that I can feel rewarded for, and conversely no 'bad' choice that I can learn from. This isn't about individual objects of the system, but about how different objects in the same "build" work together.

Of course, as I've stated multiple times he won't reach this vision of everything being equally useful (if not equally viable in every situation). He's not the first idiot to claim that he's going to make the first completely balanced system without bad choices. I fucking wish some of you had been following the RPG system design scene so you could see the amount of times between 04 and 09 that some Sawyer-type came along and promised to balance system design forever and ever.

But that's besides the point. The point is, that if he reaches his vision (which he won't), he will also remove a central element from the greatness of good character customization.

For a good example of how to do this right, see Path of Exile's passive skill tree: http://www.pathofexile.com/passive-skill-tree

I guarantee you that each individual node is useful, but if you combine them in an idiotic way, you will fuck up your build beyond repair. You do the necessary reading and investigation on how the system works, and you won't fuck up, but will be rewarded for your understanding of the system, if you're able to figure it out. This is the way systems are supposed to work. Not trial and error, but rewards and punishment based on your understanding of the system. This of course requires a completely transparant system that gives you every single grain of information you could want. Most RPGs are terrible at this, but now we digress. The point is that shielding the players from fucking up their character build is the surest and safest way to create an uninteresting, stale and very unrewarding character system.

 

[Kirtai]

No, the assumption is that one of those playthroughs will be the first and subsequent ones may or may not occur.

In fact, the first playthrough may prevent further ones if it's a horrible experience due to broken design elements, so it should avoid being awful.

The point is that shielding the players from fucking up their character build is the surest and safest way to create an uninteresting, stale and very unrewarding character system.

There's a big difference between getting a broken build due to stupid player choices and getting a broken build due to the underlying abilities being useless and/or broken with no indication. I get the impression that fixing the latter is the main idea, though we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Infinitron]

The problem is that he is also, in a completely unrelated design decision, trying to remove the rewards of constructing good builds with choices that work together in a greater whole.

Really? That's news to me.

Anyway, my original post that you responded to was semi-trolling in case you didn't notice. I'm okay with a little bit of time and frustration to master the system. All things in moderation...

 

[EG]

If the first faulty character design causes someone to throw up their hands in disgust and abandon the game for all eternity, then fuck them.

Unless you're a marketer, of course.

 

[Roguey]

For a good example of how to do this right, see Path of Exile's passive skill tree: http://www.pathofexile.com/passive-skill-tree

You're using that gimmicky shit as an example of a character system done right? Good god.

 

[Grunker]

For a good example of how to do this right, see Path of Exile's passive skill tree: http://www.pathofexile.com/passive-skill-tree

You're using that gimmicky shit as an example of a character system done right? Good god.

I'm using it as an example of a system where everything is useful but you can very easily gimp your build. You're welcome to offer a counterpoint to that statement that isn't just a retarded attempt to take one line out of context and be edgy.

To defend against said lame attempt I will say that PoE's system makes sense only for the context of the very simple action-RPG mechanics the game employs, I would never use that system for a game like P:E. But I never said I would, did I, you just used it as a strawman because fuck the argument itself, right? The system was, however, the perfect example to illustrate my point that it is perfectly possible to implement system mastery and reward into a system where nothing is utterly useless a la Outdoorsman or Toughness. Why Sawyer doesn't believe that I have no clue.

 

[Roguey]

I'm using it as an example of a system where everything is useful but you can very easily gimp your build. You're welcome to offer a counterpoint to that statement that isn't just a retarded attempt to take one line out of context and be edgy.

I sincerely doubt everything there is useful. There's guaranteed to be a lot of crap there that isn't worth taking at all compared to other, more useful abilities.

The system was, however, the perfect example to illustrate my point that it is perfectly possible to implement system mastery and reward into a system where nothing is utterly useless a la Outdoorsman or Toughness. Why Sawyer doesn't believe that I have no clue.

There are some things you can't know are utterly useless until you play the game and realize "Wow this would be utterly useless."

 

[Grunker]

I sincerely doubt everything there is useful. There's guaranteed to be a lot of crap there that isn't worth taking at all compared to other, more useful abilities.

Of course, everything isn't exactly equally useful. You see, that's impossible. Just like it will be in Sawyer's system. There is, however, nothing that isn't useful. I have followed the game very closely, and the build-variety is staggering, and every. single. note. on the tree has been in use in one pro-build or another.

The system was, however, the perfect example to illustrate my point that it is perfectly possible to implement system mastery and reward into a system where nothing is utterly useless a la Outdoorsman or Toughness. Why Sawyer doesn't believe that I have no clue.

There are some things you can't know are utterly useless until you play the game and realize "Wow this would be utterly useless."

Not sure I follow what you're saying here. I'm saying system mastery and rewards are possible as long as you make combinations of stuff useless and give players the ability to determine that without experience. Sawyer says this is impossible. If what you're saying is that experience is required, then why? As long as the system is transparant, it shouldn't be. It helps, of course, but nothing is wrong with that. Without any chance to build a house of poor quality, building a pretty house will not be rewarding.

It stuns me that people on the Codex can argue for a system so shallow you cannot use it in the wrong way. I might as well have automatic leveling in that case.

 

[hiver]

Sawyer only means that he will try to create a system where everything is useful.
Not just mechanically but, by creating content to support that usefulness.

He never said he means to make a system where everything is exactly equally useful.
But hey, go for strawman created by your misinterpretation, and lets just forget the actual facts.

Also, if RPGs of the past tended to have useless skills, and we learned to cope with it, especially in cases of games where it was worthwhile to persevere, re-roll or start from scratch - that doesnt mean that should be a goal of the design.
Claiming so is extremely stupid, since such inadequacies were created by mistakes, misjudgements or various development problems.

The answer is to strive to do better.
Not to attempt to achieve perfection. Thats just misunderstanding and misinterpretation, not something anyone relevant claimed.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

Path of Exile's passive skill tree looks awfully familiar...

 

[Grunker]

^ yup, the look and basis for the design is pretty taken from FFX (it isn't nearly as linear in the way you move within it though).

 

[Roguey]

Of course, everything isn't exactly equally useful. You see, that's impossible. Just like it will be in Sawyer's system. There is, however, nothing that isn't useful. I have followed the game very closely, and the build-variety is staggering, and every. single. note. on the tree has been in use in one pro-build or another.

Eventually there'll be a consensus. "If you play this class, these select few builds are the ones to use for maximum potential."

Not sure I follow what you're saying here.

I'm saying if you have a game with ~stave mastery~ and find out that staves are barely supported or not nearly as good as other weapons, that's an error you couldn't have possible foreseen. I believe this was the case with Risen, a game you hate. Swords and axes? Knock yourself out (but there are more swords). Staves? Ha, enjoy your lousy damage numbers and inability to block attacks!

I'm saying system mastery and rewards are possible as long as you make combinations of stuff useless and give players the ability to determine that without experience. Sawyer says this is impossible. If what you're saying is that experience is required, then why? As long as the system is transparant, it shouldn't be. It helps, of course, but nothing is wrong with that. Without any chance to build a house of poor quality, building a pretty house will not be rewarding.

I don't think anyone wants to find themselves with a house of poor quality. Oh, it's okay if other people build houses of poor quality. It better not be mine though.

It stuns me that people on the Codex can argue for a system so shallow you cannot use it in the wrong way. I might as well have automatic leveling in that case.

I don't believe a system where every build has clear strengths and weaknesses is necessarily shallow. Preferably it's one where the strengths don't make the weaknesses immaterial.

 

[Grunker]

Eventually there'll be a consensus. "If you play this class, these select few builds are the ones to use for maximum potential."

Like there will be in Sawyer's system, you mean.

I'm saying if you have a game with ~stave mastery~ and find out that staves are barely supported or not nearly as good as other weapons, that's an error you couldn't have possible foreseen. I believe this was the case with Risen, a game you hate. Swords and axes? Knock yourself out (but there are more swords). Staves? Ha, enjoy your lousy damage numbers and inability to block attacks!

Uh, I agree very strongly, but then I've never contested this point. In fact, I stated outright why Outdoorsman and Toughness suck (unless they're gateways). Why do you bring it up?

I don't think anyone wants to find themselves with a house of poor quality. Oh, it's okay if other people build houses of poor quality. It better not be mine though.

Diversion. If every house I look at when I'm buying is fundamentally identical, my decision holds no merit, so why enable me to make it?

I don't believe a system where every build has clear strengths and weaknesses is necessarily shallow. Preferably it's one where the strengths don't make the weaknesses immaterial.

Again, diversion. I'm saying that if I can make no wrong decisions, why do I even have to decide?

 

[Arkeus]

Eventually there'll be a consensus. "If you play this class, these select few builds are the ones to use for maximum potential."

Like there will be in Sawyer's system, you mean.

To be fair, a LOT of PoE nodes can't be used by anyone unless you are unaware of how the game works. Nodes that are either 'a pure waste of time because there will ALWAYS be something better no matter your build", or nodes that "are just plain buggy".

 

[DraQ]

I'm saying that if I can make no wrong decisions, why do I even have to decide?

System where there are no bad (or overpowered) builds can still be interesting, rewarding *and* challenging, because adapting one's playstyle to their build or finding a build that doesn't fail in the context of one's playstyle can still be difficult.

The question simply changes from "what?" to "how?".

 

[hiver]

That and the fact that mistakes are then your own, tactical mistakes - instead of mistakes that the games poor design backstabbs you with - and from which there is no escape except restarting from scratch.

 

[St. Toxic]

Finally a game even my grandmother can enjoy.

 

[EG]

The question simply changes from "what?" to "how?".

Why eliminate one for the sake of the other?

 

[St. Toxic]

Ok, so I play Fallout for the first time. It's post apoc game inspired by Mad Max. It implies scarcity of resources and strong survival themes, so it seems natural to tag melee as my combat skill (not much ammo to go around), outdorsman (survival, man, you will be walking around scorched, radioactive, post-nuclear wasteland a lot, would be downright stupid to not tag it) and some medical skills (likewise, it's not like there are going to be healing potions or equivalent just lying around in great quantities in harsh, post nuclear environment, right?).

Oops.

Oops what? Can't finish the game?

Or maybe I play Fallout for the first time and I see it's a retrofuturistic sci-fi game (albeit a post-apoc one), which is reinforced by comics in the loading screens. Naturally I pick rayguns as my primary offensive skill.

Oops.

Yeah, major oops. No energy weapons in the game huh? You don't exactly need to tag any other combat skills to survive long enough to get your hands on a laser pistol.

Attention deficit disorder supposedly means lack of prophetic skills.

Well, there's that, and there's shitting on a game because the first character you built in it wasn't automatically balanced for maximum efficiency. The whole thing just reeks of the same kind of morons who complain about being backstabbed in multiplayer games.

If you have swords, bows and staff skills and the retards put precious points in all three then probably something is wrong with their understanding (example).

No, it means something is wrong with your design, because you put in three skills without making them different and circumstantially useful enough to make the versatility of having all three worth the tradeoff in power, making them effectively redundant.

You mean that barely being able to hit with 3 different kinds of weapons should be a strategy just as viable as mastering one weapon? I mean, sure, it sort of works in action-rpgs where the overblown stats of random rare drops for weapons can counteract the lack of proficiency on the character's part, but the only doubtful benefit to this approach is a personal economy that's easier to manage, at the cost of getting increasingly underpowered as the game progresses.

Why not use the same argument for non-combat skills? Why can't a low value of charisma/stealth/lockpick/toaster repair be as useful as a high value of either one of those skills? You're totally going to kick ass in the early parts of the game, sure, arguing your way into repairing someone's toaster that's behind a locked door with a guard, but once you get further into the game and the various non-combat challenges require a higher investment into those skills to be of any use? You'll inevitably find your character spread too thin to get anything done. What's the solution? Decrease the required investment and you're making specialized builds less viable.

If a build is possible it should be viable and potentially fun to play.

Ah, yes, the potential of fun. I always wondered how they put it into stuff, like games, movies, dog chews etc.

Now, finding this viability can and should require a lot of sweat, blood and sweet, sweet ragetears.

Yeah, just make every skill like First Aid in Fallout and you're set.

That and the fact that mistakes are then your own, tactical mistakes - instead of mistakes that the games poor design backstabbs you with - and from which there is no escape except restarting from scratch.

Why escape? What are you afraid of? Just tough it out like a man.

 

[Shadenuat]

If a build is possible it should be viable and potentially fun to play.

A "build" is a strategic combination of skills. It should be possible to choose wrong or more difficult strategy to execute, unless you take all strategy out from character making system from the beginning.