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

[Infinitron]

It makes no sense and there was never an attribute in D&D that gave you spell resistance or anything.

Saving throws. We're talking about saving throws, although PE may not have an equivalent of those(?)

 

[NotTale]

Actually, by simplifying damage mechanics, the game will probably make effective magical attacks more ubiquitous. There'll be plenty of wizards out there with a high damage stat blasting you with their magical attacks, in the same way that there'll be plenty of fighters with a high damage stat slashing at you with their swords. So unifying the damage stat actually strengthens the case for splitting the defense stat.

I have to be missing something here.

Why does a simpler damage mechanic make effective magic attacks more ubiquitous? To put it another way, even with a less unified damage mechanic, why would they design enemies that use ineffective attacks? Why does this mean anything about the enemies at all?

 

[Sensuki]

It makes no sense and there was never an attribute in D&D that gave you spell resistance or anything.

Saving throws. We're talking about saving throws, although PE may not have an equivalent of those(?)

Yeah no saving throws. If you go back to the update about Attack Resolution ...

All attacks in Project Eternity compare the attacker's Accuracy value to one of four defenses: Deflection (direct melee and ranged attacks), Fortitude (body system attacks like poison and disease), Reflexes (area of effect damage attacks), and Willpower (mental attacks).

A Hit is the standard damage and duration effects, a Graze is 50% minimum damage or duration, a Critical Hit is 150% maximum damage or duration, and a Miss has no effect.

All spells are now targeted and follow the same rules as a physical attack.

 

[Infinitron]

Actually, by simplifying damage mechanics, the game will probably make effective magical attacks more ubiquitous. There'll be plenty of wizards out there with a high damage stat blasting you with their magical attacks, in the same way that there'll be plenty of fighters with a high damage stat slashing at you with their swords. So unifying the damage stat actually strengthens the case for splitting the defense stat.

I have to be missing something here.

Why does a simpler damage mechanic make effective magic attacks more ubiquitous? To put it another way, even with a less unified damage mechanic, why would they design enemies that use ineffective attacks? Why does this mean anything about the enemies at all?

Because it makes offensive spells more of a "generic tool" whose damage output you can modify with your stats. Add to that the fact that per-rest spells will eventually become per-encounter spells as you grow more powerful, and that Wizards in PE will have a magical but non-spell "Blast" ability that they can use as much as they want.

The general impression is that spells are being brought more in line with standard weapons, which are of course ubiquitous.

Yeah no saving throws. If you go back to the update about Attack Resolution ...

All attacks in Project Eternity compare the attacker's Accuracy value to one of four defenses: Deflection (direct melee and ranged attacks), Fortitude (body system attacks like poison and disease), Reflexes (area of effect damage attacks), and Willpower (mental attacks).

A Hit is the standard damage and duration effects, a Graze is 50% minimum damage or duration, a Critical Hit is 150% maximum damage or duration, and a Miss has no effect.

All spells are now targeted and follow the same rules as a physical attack.

Ah, good. Yeah, I see no reason why you couldn't have different attributes affecting each one of those defenses.

 

[Tommy Wiseau]

I hope this game's going to be more than a dungeon crawl.

 

[dunno lah]

I hope this game's going to be more than a dungeon crawl.

MCA telling you otherwise doesn't inspire faith in you?

 

[Tommy Wiseau]

You know I actually thought this was the Shadowrun Returns thread when I posted that comment, but I think it stands nonetheless.

 

[Grunker]

Grunker makes good arguments ITT. Sending Josh Sawyer a link to this conversation, let's see if he responds. (probably not)

A while ago I had an argument on SA with a bunch of peeps about 4E being shit. I've also questioned Josh Sawyer about editions of D&D in an interview. Personally I don't think he believes that 4E is that bad. The class design in P:E is exactly what he said he was going to do, a mix of 3.5 and 4E. At-will, encounter and daily abilities are in, 'gain something new per level' is in a la Pathfinder/4E but classes have a mix of passive, modal and active abilities, rather than having exactly the same amount each.

I think Josh's skill and attribute design sounds like what 4E should have done, rather than what they actually did. He thinks that 4E is the most mechanically sound system of D&D so I think if you said 'my friend is worried about P:E being too much like 4E he will just say something like 4E is the most balanced version of D&D but I didn't like some of it's systems etc.

I agree with this for the most part. My comments are actually more directed towards Roguey than they are to Sawyer. In many ways, Roguey is much more Sawyer than Sawyer is. My criticism of Sawyer specifically is two-fold here:

1) That he dismisses player experiences when players disagree with him (they don't know what's good for them, they don't show the behaviour they claim to have, etc.), and holds it as alpha omega when it serves his point (this is what players actually do, so I'm right, right?)

2) His dismissal of every other complex RPG system is faulty because a) his is making a simple system and criticizing very complex ones for having increased balance issues and less uniformity and b) he refuses to acknowledge that any design he is improving on has value (RPG systems are shit!), even though his improvements may be just that: improvements. I.e. he is building on a strong foundation and he doesn't acknowledge that.

Also, as a side-note, I'd like to know just how experienced Sawyer is with other systems. I recall Roguey speaking about him having experience with GURPS, for instance. GURPS 4th Edition is the most complex and uniform system we have probably, and it suffers from plenty of "balance" issues that arise as a natural progression of its complexity, despite it having mathematical equality AND the largest bed of playtesters in the industry.

 

[Kem0sabe]

Single player games don't have balance issues. Balance issues only arise when you are in an environment where they affect more than one player.

Trying to optimize and simplify every game system and mechanic in search for the perfect balance of difficulty and ease of use is a fruitless pursuit.

 

[Grunker]

Single player games don't have balance issues. Balance issues only arise when you are in an environment where they affect more than one player.

Not that I'm going to defend Sawyer's philosophy here (God knows I disagree with him on his definition), but the above is obviously untrue. Balance isn't a word that signifies equal opportunity between players, it's a word that signifies value of system assets relative to each other. Though I can certainly understand how you adopted that false definition seing as people keep repeating it here. That doesn't make it more true, though.

Ask any game designer and he/she will tell you that a significant portion of making a game is making sure the difficulty settings are balanced to provide the right challenge, and in that vein that the options at the player's disposal are so as well.

 

[Sensuki]

I agree with this for the most part. My comments are actually more directed towards Roguey than they are to Sawyer. In many ways, Roguey is much more Sawyer than Sawyer is. My criticism of Sawyer specifically is two-fold here:

1) That he dismisses player experiences when players disagree with him (they don't know what's good for them, they don't show the behaviour they claim to have, etc.), and holds it as alpha omega when it serves his point (this is what players actually do, so I'm right, right?)

2) His dismissal of every other complex RPG system is faulty because a) his is making a simple system and criticizing very complex ones for having increased balance issues and less uniformity and b) he refuses to acknowledge that any design he is improving on has value (RPG systems are shit!), even though his improvements may be just that: improvements. I.e. he is building on a strong foundation and he doesn't acknowledge that.

Also, as a side-note, I'd like to know just how experienced Sawyer is with other systems. I recall Roguey speaking about him having experience with GURPS, for instance. GURPS 4th Edition is the most complex and uniform system we have probably, and it suffers from plenty of "balance" issues that arise as a natural progression of its complexity, despite it having mathematical equality AND the largest bed of playtesters in the industry.

I agree, I also think (not necessarily a criticism it's kind of built into your criticism of making a simple system and criticizing complex ones) that he believes that mathematical symmetry in system design leads to balance and fun. Whereas in my experience in most cases through playing I have found the opposite. The ONLY thing worse about it is that it is harder to understand the rules at first for some people.

 

[Kem0sabe]

Single player games don't have balance issues. Balance issues only arise when you are in an environment where they affect more than one player.

Ask any game designer and he/she will tell you that a significant portion of making a game is making sure the difficulty settings are balanced to provide the right challenge, and in that vein that the options at the player's disposal are so as well.

But has there ever been a consensus about difficulty in an crpg? you can over design and brake a number of systems that can be easily exploited, i.e ToEE, you can simplify and trivialize the content, i.e Dragon Age.

Sawyer is obviously trying to find a balance, but the pursuit might be fruitless if he aims to build the perfect system instead of the most fun to play system. I had loads of fun with a broken ToEE, not so much with DA.

Oh, and i agree, my definition of balance is mistaken obviously, i had in mind the simple term that most mmorpg players throw around, dismiss it as idiocy.

 

[Infinitron]

Sensuki I don't remember Josh or anybody else ever mentioning "mathematical symmetry".

I can understand that there's a certain satisfying wish fulfillment factor in being presented with obvious choices and making the right one ("My fighter has 18 strength! He is STRONG! That makes him better than the other fighters!") but that does get old after you've rolled your 100th character. Eventually you start thinking, "Man, it sure would be cool if I could create a fighter who doesn't have high strength and have the game cater to that." You know, just for diversity's sake.

 

[Grunker]

I wonder what Sawyer would say about mechanically heavy games that are purposely very imbalanced.

Example 1: My The Witcher Pen & Paper campaign (GURPS, mechanically heavy, with complicated tactical combat), where one player plays a Witcher and controls a character worth 300 points and another player plays a smuggler worth around 130 points.

Example 2: Blood Bowl, a game that, by its very concept, is made to produce fun from heavy randomization and dealing with results you did not necessarily create.

 

[Sensuki]

I don't remember Josh or anybody else ever mentioning "mathematical symmetry".

No he's never mentioned mathematical symmetry, but he's mentioned the word unified / unification many times which is pretty much the same thing.

Every change he's made from D&D in regards to P:E's systems is unify systems with the same mechanics & mathematical symmetry.

Plenty of examples:

Attack Resolution: Every attack, spell and ability now follows the same rules
Skills: All skills have to have a per-character sliding benefit equal to the combat efficacy that Stealth gives
Damage stat: All bonus damage derives from one stat
Class design: All classes advance with the same mechanics (exactly the same mechanics) and the only difference is the types of abilities they get

etc etc

 

[tuluse]

Example 2: Blood Bowl, a game that, by its very concept, is made to produce fun from heavy randomization and dealing with results you did not necessarily create.

This has nothing to do with imbalance. However, there were many discussions about the right amount of randomness in a game. He said DnD pre-4E had too much for his tastes.

 

[Grunker]

Single player games don't have balance issues. Balance issues only arise when you are in an environment where they affect more than one player.

Ask any game designer and he/she will tell you that a significant portion of making a game is making sure the difficulty settings are balanced to provide the right challenge, and in that vein that the options at the player's disposal are so as well.

But has there ever been a consensus about difficulty in an crpg? you can over design and brake a number of systems that can be easily exploited, i.e ToEE, you can simplify and trivialize the content, i.e Dragon Age.

Sawyer is obviously trying to find a balance, but the pursuit might be fruitless if he aims to build the perfect system instead of the most fun to play system. I had loads of fun with a broken ToEE, not so much with DA.

Oh, and i agree, my definition of balance is mistaken obviously, i had in mind the simple term that most mmorpg players throw around, dismiss it as idiocy.

I dunno about difficulty, I was only using it as an example that balance is a broader term. I have no idea what I find good difficulty... I guess if I'm to think about the games that challenged me in the most compelling ways, I'd say Baldur's Gate 2, Jagged Alliance 2 and Wizardry 8... only one of those games is on my personal top 10 though.

Plenty of examples:

Attack Resolution: Every attack, spell and ability now follows the same rules
Skills: All skills have to have a per-character sliding benefit equal to the combat efficacy that Stealth gives
Damage stat: All bonus damage derives from one stat
Class design: All classes advance with the same mechanics (exactly the same mechanics) and the only difference is the types of abilities they get

etc etc

You only need to look at GURPS to find proof that this approach can be a way to add more depth to a system.

Regarding the above, 4th Edition is the worst example of how to it, and GURPS is the best. Both systems are vastly different despite utilizing the same philosophy regarding this one concept.

 

[Tommy Wiseau]

Balance is obviously important for a genre that relies on the player to create a varied assortment of skill builds and the dependent underlying mechanics.

"Balance in a SP lol" -- what you're thinking before playing an unbalanced RPG.

"lol wtf this build is retardot how is this viable bad dezign" -- what you're thinking when playing an unbalanced RPG.

 

[Grunker]

Example 2: Blood Bowl, a game that, by its very concept, is made to produce fun from heavy randomization and dealing with results you did not necessarily create.

This has nothing to do with imbalance.

It has. Teams are given vastly different tools to deal with the randomness, and some of those are obviously better than others. Blood Bowl has (purposefully) "joke" teams which are significantly worse than others but gives their coach a challenge, works as dynamic handicaps to better players in a league or simply have insanely powerful players that couldn't possibly be balanced unless they're part of a team that are obviously worse at winning.

Without this imbalance, Blood Bowl would be a lot less dynamic. Now you can be impressed by someone who manages to win a league with halflings, look at the streamlined, efficient play of Dark Elves or simply laugh out loud at the crazy chaos that goblin teams create, even though they rarely win.

(all this caused rougey to scoff in dismay, obviously )

 

[Sensuki]

I can understand that there's a certain satisfying wish fulfillment factor in being presented with obvious choices and making the right one ("My fighter has 18 strength! He is STRONG! That makes him better than the other fighters!") but that does get old after you've rolled your 100th character. Eventually you start thinking, "Man, it sure would be cool if I could create a fighter who doesn't have high strength and have the game cater to that." You know, just for diversity's sake.

But this has nothing to do with mathematical symmetry. Making a mathematically symmetrical system is arguably the easiest way to tackle that objective but options that use different mechanics relatively as appealing to eachother is far more satisfying as a player because then it FEELS totally different when you're playing something else. A Wizard in BG2 feels totally different to playing a Fighter, some might argue that the Wizard is more fun. When I played 4th Edition, the illusion of difference faded before my eyes and I started to realize ... you know I'm actually not really enjoying the combat in this game, everything is the same.

I haven't had too much of a problem with many of P:E's systems but as time has gone by ... I'm starting to get annoyed and a bit worried at the direction of things.

 

[Grunker]

I can understand that there's a certain satisfying wish fulfillment factor in being presented with obvious choices and making the right one ("My fighter has 18 strength! He is STRONG! That makes him better than the other fighters!") but that does get old after you've rolled your 100th character. Eventually you start thinking, "Man, it sure would be cool if I could create a fighter who doesn't have high strength and have the game cater to that." You know, just for diversity's sake.

But this has nothing to do with mathematical symmetry. Making a mathematically symmetrical system is arguably the easiest way to tackle that objective but options that use different mechanics relatively as appealing to eachother is far more satisfying as a player because then it FEELS totally different when you're playing something else. A Wizard in BG2 feels totally different to playing a Fighter, some might argue that the Wizard is more fun. When I played 4th Edition, the illusion of difference faded before my eyes and I started to realize ... you know I'm actually not really enjoying the combat in this game, everything is the same.

You are speaking faultily because your only basis of reference is 4th Edition. You should look at GURPS. It is mathematically unified and completely systemic, yet has none of the problems you explain there. As I said:

4th Edition is the worst example of how to do it, and GURPS is the best. Both systems are vastly different despite utilizing the same philosophy regarding this one concept.

 

[tuluse]

It has. Teams are given vastly different tools to deal with the randomness, and some of those are obviously better than others. Blood Bowl has (purposefully) "joke" teams which are significantly worse than others but gives their coach a challenge, works as dynamic handicaps to better players in a league or simply have insanely powerful players that couldn't possibly be balanced unless they're part of a team that are obviously worse at winning.

Without this imbalance, Blood Bowl would be a lot less dynamic. Now you can be impressed by someone who manages to win a league with halflings, look at the streamlined, efficient play of Dark Elves or simply laugh out loud at the crazy chaos that goblin teams create, even though they rarely win.

(all this caused rougey to scoff in dismay, obviously )

All of this is true, but it has nothing to do with what you originally wrote.


Josh has talked about being able to create gimped characters for fun, and he said it's more important that new players don't accidentally create gimped characters than allowing experienced players to make them.

 

[Excidium]

If you knew ANYTHING about the subject instead of just aping the thoughts of your gurus, you'd know that this closed development cycle is the no. 1 criticism of 4th ed. among people who follow the scene. It's also why D&D Next has the most open development cycle to date.

The fact is that Sawyer ignores player experience when it is convenience, and at other times it is his alpha-omega.

"D&D Next is going to fail because it's trying to be too many things to too many people"--Josh

Nah, it's going to fail because it's fucking SHIT (and actually got worse through development) and once again WOTC alienates its own audience by making the new edition of their game wildly different from the previous one.

This idea that Next is some sort of unifying system that brings things from all editions only exists in WOTC's marketing

 

[Grunker]

It has. Teams are given vastly different tools to deal with the randomness, and some of those are obviously better than others. Blood Bowl has (purposefully) "joke" teams which are significantly worse than others but gives their coach a challenge, works as dynamic handicaps to better players in a league or simply have insanely powerful players that couldn't possibly be balanced unless they're part of a team that are obviously worse at winning.

Without this imbalance, Blood Bowl would be a lot less dynamic. Now you can be impressed by someone who manages to win a league with halflings, look at the streamlined, efficient play of Dark Elves or simply laugh out loud at the crazy chaos that goblin teams create, even though they rarely win.

(all this caused rougey to scoff in dismay, obviously )

All of this is true, but it has nothing to do with what you originally wrote.

I thought most people knew Blood Bowl, and I made that post brief

 

[Sensuki]

I'm not familiar with GURPS that is true, but I am using 4th Edition as an example in most posts because most of Josh's systems are based on or a derivative of D&D 4E.

My biggest issues so far have been the information about Attributes and the Crafting skill that was removed.

Starcraft is a good example of a balanced game that does use mathematical symmetry across it's systems, but the mechanics for units and races are different.

Terran units can heal and be repaired by other units. Protoss units have a regenerating shield and cannot regain HP and Zerg units regenerate when they're on Creep.

All damage values in the game are fixed and all damage upgrades across all three races provide the same amount of bonus damage or armor to units.

Perhaps you are right though, my complaint is probably more about unification and simplification of systems that were previously discrete if however related (such as there being no mechanical difference between any types of attack or all forms of bonus damage coming from the same stat).