Development Info Josh Sawyer on Utility and Balance in Game Design

[Lancehead]

Yeah, I really do wonder where you see the dissonance.

 

[EG]

But it's lockpicking. It's use is to pick locks. If it had a greater use, it'd be called something other than lock picking, which would change it to another skill that wasn't lockpicking. Lockpicking needs to be about picking locks to be lockpicking. Pick-pic-loc-skil . . .

. . .

Your argument is that, having additional options to access the contents of a container, some of which may or may not be mutually exclusive of one method or another, calls for the complete scrapping of one of those methods, else it diminishes the importance of the other skill(s) throughout the game.

Right? I . . . haven't gone insane?

I think I've gone inaneinsane.

 

[Volourn]

"Since lockpicking typically has only one use, which is lockpicking, it'd be one of the first to become obsolete."

As I've said before, in any game where you had both the option to pick locks or to bash; lock picking did not become obselete. it's pure lie to suggest it does.

It doesn't take a genius to know how to balance lockpicking with bashing and other stuff. If I can do it in my mod, a PROFESSIONAL GAME DEVELOPER should be able to. FFS

 

[DwarvenFood]

As long as you can lockpick a lock with your lockpick skill, it is useful - question is, is it worth putting the skill points in there, or are you content in bashing most locks and you won't be butthurt about the ones that you cannot open. Where is the problem ?

 

[Arkeus]

Your argument is that, having additional options to access the contents of a container, some of which may or may not be mutually exclusive of one method or another, calls for the complete scrapping of one of those methods, else it diminishes the importance of the other skill(s) throughout the game.

If one of the option to open locks is 'free' compared to using lockpicking (E.G, having a wzard in the party cast 'open lock'; having a warrior with high strength bash it) lockpicking is not only useless, it's a sucker investment that only those larping would take.

So, yes, it should be removed.

 

[EG]

But . . . it isn't free. Nor does it apply to every lock. o_O Just as lockpicking shouldn't | doesn't. In this way, they're complimentary.

 

[Lancehead]

But it's lockpicking. It's use is to pick locks. If it had a greater use, it'd be called something other than lock picking, which would change it to another skill that wasn't lockpicking. Lockpicking needs to be about picking locks to be lockpicking. Pick-pic-loc-skil . . .

Yes, you're right, there's not much that can be done with lockpicking beyond picking locks. Except perhaps including some skill checks in dialogue, like New Vegas did. But that's not much.

What I'd ideally like is for a task to not just have multiple solutions (something I was never against, to begin with), but for it have multiple solutions based on different combinations of skills/abilities/tools/whatever. I.e. synergy, much like when facing a challenging opponent in combat requires use of various abilities to strip him of his protections.

A very simple example is a locked container that is trapped and is magically warded. This can be made much more complex to facilitate different solutions.

Perhaps it requires a divination spell or something to determine which spell is required to break the ward. If the party doesn't have that spell, then perhaps another spell with a somewhat similar effect can be used, which breaks the ward but has negative side effects, like damaging the contents of the container or snapping the trap with its associated results.

High skill in disabling trap allows the party to retrieve the trap, which would a bonus to the contents inside. The trap and the lock may indeed be bashed free, but that would damage the content inside (i.e. bashing always inferior to disabling traps and picking locks when there is a skill specifically designed for that task).

Clearing an obstacle(s) with an alternate skill may require a resource to be expended. The higher the skill the less the resource use. The order of clearing the obstacle may be made important.

And yet you can have containers that are only locked, or are trapped, or are magically warded, or some other protection, or some combination of any of those with added parameters incorporating different solutions. This approach obviously results in lesser number of solutions per task than if you provide different solutions based on different individual skills, because the designers have limited resources to device all the complex contraptions. But I prefer this approach because it calls into question various skills of the party, which has access to wide array of them, and keeps all the relevant skills integral to the solutions.

 

[EG]

Alright Lance, in your example, let's say we have a container that is only trapped. The only thing that prevents access to its contents is that trap (for simplicity, we'll assume it's an instant-kill if the trap isn't disabled). In this theoretical game, you also have lockpick, but it serves no purpose here.

Should lockpick or trapping be removed because, in this one instance, trapping offers the same benefits as lockpicking?

(I like your idea of multiple skills working in combination for a single task, by the way. It's something I've wanted in games for years and had thought we'd see by now, but its not seen, for some reason. Maybe it has to do with it "What, I disabled the trap! Why do I have to then unlock it? I should just get the reward FFFFFUUUUUUUUU!" reaction. )

 

[Arkeus]

But . . . it isn't free. Nor does it apply to every lock. o_O Just as lockpicking shouldn't | doesn't. In this way, they're complimentary.

As long as you can only lockpick most locks that use lockpicking, they would be- but if you can use bashing for locks that would otherwise need lockpicking, it's not 'complementary', it's "i don't want to put point in the skill but still benefit from it".

 

[Lancehead]

Alright Lance, in your example, let's say we have a container that is only trapped. The only thing that prevents access to its contents is that trap (for simplicity, we'll assume it's an instant-kill if the trap isn't disabled). In this theoretical game, you also have lockpick, but it serves no purpose here.

Should lockpick or trapping be removed because, in this one instance, trapping offers the same benefits as lockpicking?

I don't quite understand this question. How does lockpicking offer benefits in that instance? It serves no purpose, you said?

(I like your idea of multiple skills working in combination for a single task, by the way. It's something I've wanted in games for years and had thought we'd see by now, but its not seen, for some reason. Maybe it has to do with it "What, I disabled the trap! Why do I have to then unlock it? I should just get the reward FFFFFUUUUUUUUU!" reaction. )

Well, there are many games that do this to an extent. Even Dragon Age has chests that locked and trapped. But yeah, more complex stuff would be welcome.

 

[EG]

As long as you can only lockpick most locks that use lockpicking, they would be- but if you can use bashing for locks that would otherwise need lockpicking, it's not 'complementary', it's "i don't want to put point in the skill but still benefit from it".

Alright, let's look at my front door . . . (Please, kill me) . . .

Let's say it takes 25% Bash to get through that door, despite a $200 lockset with an 80% lockpick check.

Now, let's say I have a lovely safe . . . A safe that can't be bashed. It has a lockpick of 95% as well.

Now, let's say I have a lovely cellar door, closed and barred. There is no lock present. It can, however, be bashed at 60%.

So, what do we have? We have a mandatory lockpick or bash check to reach certain content, and on certain types of content, we have the ability to use either.

So help me, bash better get a nice boost for those that invest heavily in strength . . .

 

[Rivmusique]

But do you really think that there couldn't be a way to implement a useful/worth investing in lockpicking skill in a game that has the option to bash/shoot open locks using attributes/skills that benefit a character in combat? Just to avoid the ridiculousness of coming across a chest the party can not pick, shrugging their shoulders and walking away. It isn't something that really bothers me to be honest, but it seems insane to say "it can not be done". Maybe if you added "on this games budget, we believe resources are better spent elsewhere".

It makes the lockpicking skill less useful and that's bad. Not a question of resources.

So what is it that makes lockpicking useful?

- The items that are gained from every locked chest? Make the most valuable ones frail, they break and become useless when opened via bashing (all the time, not the % chance of each item breaking I have seen in some games, that can be save-scummed around).
- Gaining entry to locked houses in a town? Bashing them down is loud, guards arrive, a reputation hit just for being caught, even more if you need to kill your way out.
- Perhaps quest objectives that are solved (therefore experience gain in P:E's case as, IIRC, completing objectives is the only way to gain it) via lockpicking?Bashing through results in a fail or a lesser success.


So if bashing is always the inferior choice, why have it at all (and I am talking about the kind that is entirely reliant on something like strength, or weapon type. Not a whole new skill)? I just think it could add a little something different to the party with no lockpicker. They walk through a dungeon smashing open every locked chest for a few coins and broken glass/gems/rings/amulets. Maybe they break down a locked door in a dungeon that is the sleeping quarters of the inhabitants, now they are awake and you are in for a fight. The lockpicker gets some instant kills. As I said, it wouldn't be a massive issue if they didn't, but I still think it is silly to say it can not be done in a way that keeps LP as good a skill as the others.

 

[EG]

Bash need not be a skill but simply rather a str check.

Agreed, I'm just not sure how it works in the system we're supposed to be basing observations in. If it's a skill, an attribute, attribute-derived value, or an attribute-derived skill.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Bash need not be a skill but simply rather a str check.

Agreed, I'm just not sure how it works in the system we're supposed to be basing observations in. If it's a skill, an attribute, attribute-derived value, or an attribute-derived skill.

I think it's a decision rather than some optimum way.

I usually scoff at textual realism but there is NOTHING wrong with taking cues from reality to design skills and honestly this is what we do.

If I were the king I would tie a lot of non combat actions (And some combat maneuvers too) to attributes (opposed to skills). E.g. Your Perception attribute will determine the Search action, strength will determine grappling, bashing, dex will determine tripping etc. I would only think of very specialized actions (As opposed to untraiend actions) as skills e.g. Lock picking, disabling traps (would have synergy btw), tracking, hiding and moving silently (although these two would be allowed untrained too), deciphering text etc.

Moreover I will not allow either attributes OR skills to go very high level, instead rather making the latter attribute limited, like in Arcanum.

 

[Arkeus]

So help me, bash better get a nice boost for those that invest heavily in strength . . .

Yes, because investing heavily in strength is something that would ONLY be useful for bashing doors/chests, like lockpicking is. This toally make sense.

 

[EG]

.

So help me, bash better get a nice boost for those that invest heavily in strength . . .

Yes, because investing heavily in strength is something that would ONLY be useful for bashing doors/chests, like lockpicking is. This toally make sense.

 

[Roguey]

So, by being able to bash a lock (or container) that cannot be lockpicked, lockpick somehow becomes diminished in usefulness

Very interesting.

If two different skills unlock different containers that doesn't necessarily diminish the other. However it'd very unlikely be a bash because there's no gameplay involved in it:
http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/177439741547934762

I've written this before, but if there's no active decision making in picking a lock or hacking a terminal, there's no "play" in it, no player skill or decision making at all. There may be risk/reward to this in an online environment (as there is in a live tabletop environment), but in a single-player game with save/load anywhere, it's pointless.

http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/236238327810895131

There is no instance gameplay to opening locks with a randomized check. There's also no reason why hacking could not have an optional resource-consumption bypass in the same way that locks could (in DX:HR, they are effectively all hacking, so AUDs always apply).

http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/236296330874469552

I don't think any core gameplay being *replaced*. Excluding the strategic decision to put points into a skill, there's no gameplay, core or otherwise, to a randomized check. There are a few other ways to handle it:

* It's a flat check. No mini-game, just based off of what you invested into the skill. Still no additional gameplay, but it avoids the save-scum-encouraging randomness of a stand-alone die roll.

* There's a mini-game that may be altered/influenced by levels of difficulty and the character's skill. Obviously this adds gameplay, but people may not like the mini-game, the mini-game may be aesthetically odd/incongruent (e.g. Bioshock's hacking minigame or Mass Effect's "Simon says" mini-game), or the mini-game may not scale well/gets old fast. These are all totally valid criticisms/complaints about individual mini-games, but what's true of one mini-game is not necessarily inherently true about ALL mini-games. E.g. F3's lockpicking is pushing a bobby pin around to find a sweet spot to pick the lock and is significantly different in most ways from Bioshock's hacking mini-game.

* There's a flat check for an automatic bypass but if you're close to the check, you can also expend a limited resource to lower the check. This is the "burn 10 lockpicks with a 20 skill, burn 2 with 100 skill" idea. Personally, I like this because there's still an ongoing level of resource management and consideration the player goes through.

* There's a mini-game that can be opted-out of (automatic bypass) through the consumption of a limited resource that scales based on skill/difficulty disparity.

In a game with save/load anywhere, I would prefer *any* of these solutions to a randomized check.

I'm positive he has no intention of adding minigames to P:E (the audience for which he's making this game wouldn't like them). Adding resource management to bashing would just be weird.

 

[EG]

Then why have a game at all, huh, Josh? Huh?!

 

[Carrion]

There are about 30 hackable terminals in the whole of New Vegas, even fewer when paired up with a lock, and over 100 locks. They both require putting points into a skill.

Opening a safe with dynamite should also require some knowledge of explosives because otherwise you might just blow up the contents as welll.

Actually, I don't even understand why Explosives was made into a combat skill in the first place (except for Bethesda's streamlining fetish and hate for the Throwing skill). I think it should be more of an utility skill than anything else, letting you destroy obstacles, arm and disarm all sorts of explosive-based traps, craft your own bombs, collapse radscorpion caves and so on. Oh well, it isn't really relevant to this discussion.

 

[Murk]

Haha, are people discussing lockpicking's validity now?

Real talk: in my table-top games we remove lockpicking and just use disable device. ;D

 

[EG]

Haha, are people discussing lockpicking's validity now?

Real talk: in my table-top games we remove lockpicking and just use disable device. ;D

I was going to propose an "Opening" skill as a lark, but "Disable Device" is more euphonic.

Damn your creativity, and such.

 

[tuluse]

Haha, are people discussing lockpicking's validity now?

Real talk: in my table-top games we remove lockpicking and just use disable device. ;D

I was going to propose an "Opening" skill as a lark, but "Disable Device" is more euphonic.

Damn your creativity, and such.

Or he's just playing Pathfinder, http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/disable-device

 

[Captain Shrek]

Haha, are people discussing lockpicking's validity now?

Real talk: in my table-top games we remove lockpicking and just use disable device. ;D

I was going to propose an "Opening" skill as a lark, but "Disable Device" is more euphonic.

Damn your creativity, and such.

Not surprising. In terms of concept and usage they are quite similar skills, in this one sense one can see them being merged. But I can imagine Lockpicking and Disabling traps to be sufficiently different things as long as 'locks' are traditional locks and not intricate 'devices'. I would still consider them sufficiently overlapped for one to yield bonus to other though.

 

[Grunker]

Haha, are people discussing lockpicking's validity now?

Real talk: in my table-top games we remove lockpicking and just use disable device. ;D

I was going to propose an "Opening" skill as a lark, but "Disable Device" is more euphonic.

Damn your creativity, and such.

Or he's just playing Pathfinder, http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/disable-device

Man, I wish P:E used Pathfinder as its base. I would have no problem with them changing the non-magic classes to better fit Josh's utility vision. In fact I'm quite certain Josh would do a great job a putting some of 4th edition's right ideas into Pathfinder and make a glorious game.

 

[Excidium]

Haha, are people discussing lockpicking's validity now?

Real talk: in my table-top games we remove lockpicking and just use disable device. ;D

I was going to propose an "Opening" skill as a lark, but "Disable Device" is more euphonic.

Damn your creativity, and such.

Or he's just playing Pathfinder, http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/disable-device

Man, I wish P:E used Pathfinder as its base. I would have no problem with them changing the non-magic classes to better fit Josh's utility vision. In fact I'm quite certain Josh would do a great job a putting some of 4th edition's right ideas into Pathfinder and make a glorious game.

Can you really use Pathfinder rules in a video game just like the OGL? I always wondered about that, it's p. unclear. In fact the only reason I know the OGL can be used without legal issues is because KOTC did it.