Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity [BETA RELEASED, GO TO THE NEW THREAD]

[MicoSelva]

I'm one of those simulationfags which think missing should be in the game because it sometimes happens and no other reason is required.

If you guys don't see the irony in the fact that you're the ones accusing me of arbitrariness, then que sera, sera, I suppose.

Hey, I'm not ashamed of my beliefs. Introduce too much abstraction and we will end up with all RPGs being Puzzle Quest clones (Puzzle Quest is awesome, btw).

 

[Grunker]

Eh no? You actually make my argument for me, in that post. The switch from AC to DR makes all kinds of simulationist sense, obviously, but you can't say that it's a strict mechanical improvement. For instance, the right way to go about would be saying "hmm, DR highlights some mechanical problems with AC (hit or miss), can we fix them and still make a game about avoidance rather than soaking?" And the answer is obviously yes. Yes you can. And if you make armor make you harder to hit in that game (because you want to make a game about avoidance), then who cares that DR is more like the way armor really works?

I probably missed your point, but I'm pretty sure most (including Sawyer) would agree that being able to choose between either focussing on soaking or avoiding is inherently more interesting gameplay than simply becoming progressively better at avoidance; at least in rpg's.

I know, my point was that you can design avoidance so it's a good mechanic - like making rules for grazing hits, damage to defenses (like dented armor and such) so that avoidance is neither hit/miss OR a matter of straight HP-soaking.

Hell, Jim the Dinosaur, you could even have rules for doing damage to a Dodge-stat, even if that is totally non-sensical. It could work as a mechanic with no trouble. I'm sure Alex will even tell us that there is a couple of games where that is the case.

The core point was that DR didn't magically become a better mechanic than AC because it was simulationist. If you still make that claim, the burden is on you to show causality. The argument that "GURPS is best, and GURPS is simulationist, so simulationist is best" is no different from "My fair mother cannot fly, a rock cannot fly, ergo, my mother is a rock."

I'm one of those simulationfags which think missing should be in the game because it sometimes happens and no other reason is required.

If you guys don't see the irony in the fact that you're the ones accusing me of arbitrariness, then que sera, sera, I suppose.

Hey, I'm not ashamed of my beliefs. Introduce too much abstraction and we will end up with all RPGs being Puzzle Quest clones (Puzzle Quest is awesome, btw).

Not saying you should be, I'm just saying you're wrong

No, that comment was directed at the people calling me out on being arbitrary.

 

[Wizfall]

When did "Blood Bowl is highly randomized" become "I suck at Blood and only lose because it's random OMG"

I am also an outspoken fan of this little article: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html which has the basic point of "blame the player, not the game." So please fuck off with your giant-ass strawman.

I'm very good at Blood Bowl, I'll have you know. However, Blood Bowl is a game where the best of coaches can actually lose to the worst of coaches in fringe scenarios. In most games, that is straight up impossible.

If you make the claim that Blood Bowl isn't randomized compared to Banner Saga, then you don't know what randomization is.

My point is that Blood Bowl is not insanely random like you said.
My point is that top coaches almost never lose, if for you above 75 win% mean the game is insanely random because in extreme "insane" scenario a rookie can beat a legend you are plain wrong.
Or we absolutely don't have the same definition of insane.
I never talked about Banner saga.

 

[Grunker]

Blood Bowl is the textbook example of a game-design with a high degree of randomization. Which is quite deliberate, and which is what makes the game fun. I can't think of another well-designed game where I could, within actual reason, beat my friend Anders Frost who is perhaps the best Blood Bowl player in Denmark. However, I can, and I have, once, in Blood Bowl, even though he is LEAGUES ahead of me, skill level wise. Skill at Blood Bowl is fundamentally about managing a range of risky (compared to most board games) actions. If we can't agree on that, I'm not going to waste my time debating it further. Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[MicoSelva]

The whole main problem in current RPG combat systems is hit points.

If we got rid of them and instead only resolved a hit result (based on accuracy, damage, defense and damage resistance and probably a thousand other varieties - computers would track them for us) as miss/no damage/minor damage/moderate damage/heavy damage/critical damage/instant death, it would make RPG combat fresh exciting and realistic. At least that's my theory.

Each damage state would progressively cause more inconvenience to the victim, avoiding the situation where a fighter with 1 HP fights as well as one with full HP (until he gets hit again).

BTW, World of Darkness' seven health states was something like this, although not exactly (basically everyone there had 7 HP, losing each one caused more inconvenience).

 

[Grunker]

I don't know how anything you say show that "the whole problem" (as in, a fundamental reason why RPGs have issues) is HP. Sure, we could probably gain a bunch of interesting design space by exploring non-HP based systems. That doesn't make HP-based systems any worse, though, just different.

 

[MicoSelva]

HP concept is copied straight from some game about battleships shooting each other. It makes sense there (somewhat), but it has no real applicability to living beings, which most characters in RPGs tend to be.

 

[Grunker]

HP concept is copied straight from some game about battleships shooting each other. It makes sense there (somewhat), but it has no real applicability to living beings, which most characters in RPGs tend to be.

I don't even get what you're saying. We have tons of good systems and RPGs with HP-mechanics, proving that they work. If all you're saying is "I don't like them personally" then fair enough. Not very relevant to the discussion, though

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

The core point was that DR didn't magically become a better mechanic than AC because it was simulationist. If you still make that claim, the burden is on you to show causality. The argument that "GURPS is best, and GURPS is simulationist, so simulationist is best" is no different from "My fair mother cannot fly, a rock cannot fly, ergo, my mother is a rock."

Okay, but all I'm saying is that approaching game design in a simulationist way, as the GURPS designers clearly did, can lead to more interesting gameplay because it forces the designer to look at something they find "overly" abstracted to the point of non-sensicality (AC) and split it up until it "makes sense" (DR/DT + dodge), thus making for more interesting player choices. Not sure how you take that same route without at least some kind of simulationist attitude.

Anyway, you'd agree that it's hard to imagine the GURPS-designers arriving at the kind of system they did without the simulationist inclinations they had, right? So my point is just that you can't separate the simulationist side of GURPS you don't care about from the system you love, but that this system is for a large part the result of that approach to design.

If your point is just that having a certain outlook isn't enough and you also need to be very competent at incorporating it all into a cohesive and entertaining system, then of course. I just think in the case of the simulationism these are more complementary than Sawyer with his "where's the fun in lying on the floor bleeding out for hours" lets on.

 

[Grunker]

The core point was that DR didn't magically become a better mechanic than AC because it was simulationist. If you still make that claim, the burden is on you to show causality. The argument that "GURPS is best, and GURPS is simulationist, so simulationist is best" is no different from "My fair mother cannot fly, a rock cannot fly, ergo, my mother is a rock."

Okay, but all I'm saying is that approaching game design in a simulationist way, as the GURPS designers clearly did, can lead to more interesting gameplay because it forces the designer to look at something they find "overly" abstracted to the point of non-sensicality (AC) and split it up until it "makes sense" (DR/DT + dodge), thus making for more interesting player choices. Not sure how you take that same route without at least some kind of simulationist attitude.

Anyway, you'd agree that it's hard to imagine the GURPS-designers arriving at the kind of system they did without the simulationist inclinations they had, right? So my point is just that you can't separate the simulationist side of GURPS you don't care about from the system you love, but that this system is for a large part the result of that approach to design.

If your point is just that having a certain outlook isn't enough and you also need to be very competent at incorporating it all into a cohesive and entertaining system, then of course. I just think in the case of the simulationism these are more complementary than Sawyer with his "where's the fun in lying on the floor bleeding out for hours" lets on.

Wow, I think I see the fundamental reason for our disagreement here. Either I've not been clear, or you've just misunderstood me:

I am not arguing against simulationism.

I am arguing against those who hold that it weighs more heavy than any other concern in system design. I am arguing against those who want an IE-successor to rely heavily on simulationism. Just like I would argue against people saying how there is not enough Basketball in their Soccer game.

I think that anyone who views GNS-theory and its derivatives as some sort of contest or selection of "game design ideologies" are fundamentally fucking retards. How the fuck do you think I could LOOOOVE GURPS without loving simulationist approaches? Heck, most of my very favourite games are games about realistic resource management and simulationist politics.

I'm not saying that simulationism cannot work, I'm saying it's one way to design systems out of many, legitimate ones.

My point is that you can approach game design from any number of perspectives and make them work. The point I'm arguing against is that simulationism should somehow be better or even a necessary element of system design.

This discussion arose because people expressed doubt in system design that were expressedly not trying to be fictionally realistic. And I said that doubt was bullshit.

 

[MicoSelva]

I don't even get what you're saying. We have tons of good systems and RPGs with HP-mechanics

Exactly. I'm saying there are way too many of them, considering how flawed and abstract that mechanic is. It's really hard to find something else (Blood Bowl is a notable exception).

 

[Stompa]

I don't even get what you're saying. We have tons of good systems and RPGs with HP-mechanics

Exactly. I'm saying there are way too many of them, considering how flawed and abstract that mechanic is. It's really hard to find something else (Blood Bowl is a notable exception).

It's not that there are too many HP-based systems, it's that D&D implementation of HP is the most common in cRPGs, even VtM:B used that instead of oWoD's own system. It's like cRPG designers take HP as something set in stone and don't try to make it differently.

 

[Grunker]

I don't even get what you're saying. We have tons of good systems and RPGs with HP-mechanics

Exactly. I'm saying there are way too many of them, considering how flawed and abstract that mechanic is.

I don't think it is very flawed, and I don't think something being abstract is an issue. That is your personal, subjective desires, and while they're totally OK to have, they're not general principles for design. Which is what we're discussing here.

 

[MicoSelva]

Obviously, it is subjective. As I said, I'm a dirty simulationist and HP concept does not fit my (potential) perfect abstraction of reality in RPGs.

Stompa (Grunker too) I can very easily name ten RPGs with HP based systems for every one non-HP you mention. Considering that non-HP based systems can differ from each other too, that means there are way too many HP based systems. They have dominated games almost completely (not just RPGs).

 

[tuluse]

this conversation

 

[Grunker]

this conversation

this post

 

[DwarvenFood]

I skipped the last 50 pages, but I don't think I missed anything.

 

[Grunker]

I skipped the last 1059 pages, but I don't think I missed anything.

fixed

 

[DraQ]

You can argue that anything is/isn't a proper abstraction of reality.

Except you can't.

Something is a proper abstraction of reality (this or fictional) if it yields the same results at certain level of detail, despite being simpler.
Something is a good abstraction if this level of detail corresponds to detail and scope of game's gameplay.

If choice of exact combat actions and their timing may significantly influence the outcome of combat, then int to damage abstraction will be a good abstraction if those elements are also abstracted away and beyond the scope of gameplay mechanics and player control and bad abstraction otherwise.

Whether something is a good or bad abstraction depends on context, but in any given context it's pretty clear.

 

[Grunker]

You can argue that anything is/isn't a proper abstraction of reality.

Whether something is a good or bad abstraction depends on context, but in any given context it's pretty clear to me, so really all a game designer needs is pick up the phone and call me. Then I can instruct him in what good abstractions and bad abstractions are, and he can make a great game.

QED

I cleaned up you post a bit there mate.

Doesn't it worry you a bit that out of everyone in the universe, you're the only one with the divine insight to define proper/improper abstractions? Doesn't it worry you that no one else uses the same terminology you use?

 

[tuluse]

this post

Do you really enjoy arguing about AC and HP for the 9157th time with people who don't even understand what those stats are abstracting (in a DnD context)?

 

[Grunker]

this post

Do you really enjoy arguing about AC and HP for the 9157th time with people who don't even understand what those stats are abstracting (in a DnD context)?

My post was mostly in reference to the vague nature of yours. I've said before I'm not really a fan of the "omg why do you discuss"-posts, considering we've had 1059 pages mostly of this shit, so apparantly people are just bored or whatever. But as to your question, I guess I do, since I'm doing it, lol. Isn't the purpose of the Codex to argue these things over and over?

Plus, I actually don't think people like Jim the Dinosaur or MicoSelva are retarded or anything. The first clearly misunderstood my posts, while the latter is a bro that I simply disagree with. In the end though, I love arguing with devoted simulationists, mostly because I'm kind of a doubter. I always doubt my opinions and I get uncertain. However, debating with people like DraQ confirms to me that I'm right, which is always nice

 

[Delterius]

The Codex is the cheapest form of catharsis therapy*.

*Physical or mental health not guaranteed.

 

[tuluse]

I'm not saying they're retarded, I'm saying they're ignorant. AC is not a measure of a character's chance to dodge. HP is not a measure of health.

 

[Grunker]

I'm not saying they're retarded, I'm saying they're ignorant.

We agree, obviously, but what's the point of arguing with someone if you don't think they're wrong?