Development Info Project Eternity Kickstarter Update #41: Dwarves and Doors (and a complete lack of proofreading)

[Roguey]

No game that allows you to bash chests and doors open has SEVERE CONSEQUENCES for doing so.

Why not make one that has, since it makes more sense? roshan gave some fine exemples of how to deal with it.

Sense is arbitrary. None of his consequences hold up to losing other skills that you'd want to have. People will just choose the best way of opening any given thing and spend their would-be points elewhere. Win-win for them.

The genuine argument almost always comes down to, "I want to open locks but I don't want to spend points on Lockpick."That's fine, but design exists to create a conflict, to present a series of trade-offs to the player.

If you spend points in Lockpick, congrats: you get to open locks. You chose to not spend points on something else, meaning you sacrificed something for that ability. If you didn't spend points in Lockpick, that's too bad.

Also it's not as if New Vegas didn't have multiple ways of unlocking certain places, but they all required some sort of skill investment. Spells and bashing are not skill investments.

 

[Irenaeus]

He's not streamlining; streamlining is when multiple options are consolidated into few.

That's exactly what is happening here. Consider roshan post on at least 8 ways on how to deal with a locked door. Here are 13 options.

 

[Irenaeus]

People will just choose the best way of opening any given thing and spend their would-be points elewhere. Win-win for them.

If there are 10 different ways to open locked doors, how will people know first hand which is the best way to open each?

Maybe there are 10 locked doors in the entire game and each one has a best way to be openned, other ways being subpar. Only by playing the game 100 times (or reading a walkthrough at gamebanshee) will make you discovered which technique fits each door, to finish the game with a "perfect score".

 

[Roguey]

If there are 10 different ways to open locked doors, how will people know first hand which is the best way to open each?

Maybe there are 10 locked doors in the entire game and each one has a best way to be openned, other ways being subpar. Only by playing the game 100 times (or reading a walkthrough at gamebanshee) will make you discovered which technique fits each door, to finish the game with a "perfect score".

Save before trying, reload if you don't get the results you want.

 

[Irenaeus]

Save before trying, reload if you don't get the results you want.

No, thanks. I'll gave my choices with consequences.

 

[Lancehead]

He's not streamlining; streamlining is when multiple options are consolidated into few.

That's exactly what is happening here. Consider roshan post on at least 8 ways on how to deal with a locked door. Here are 13 options.

What's happening here is this:

One skill - one use. So the trade-off is you miss out on the use if you don't have the sufficient skill.
One task - multiple solutions (in other words, one skill - multiple uses). So the trade-off is you have different consequences on different solutions.

The first approach results in a wider array of skills, and the second approach results in fewer skills. Assuming the content in both the cases is the same. Of course, you can make the second approach to have the same number of skills as the first approach, but the combination of various tasks in the game and their solutions will inevitably make a number of skills useless.

 

[Irenaeus]

The first approach results in a wider array of skills, and the second approach results in fewer skills. Assuming the content in both the cases is the same.

If this is true, I guess my quest is for more content, which is a problem from the start, since resources are limited.

 

[Infinitron]

That's fine, but design exists to create a conflict, to present a series of trade-offs to the player.

Obviously, there's a significant audience who disagree with this statement. They don't think that game designers should be trying to intentionally create any particular gameplay dynamics.

Instead, they want the game designers to function first and foremost as content creators, whose mission is to create as much content and options as possible for them to play with. In their view, it's the player's responsibility, not the designer's, to find out how to make that content challenging or fun, if he so desires.

Ironically, while these players think they're the "hardcore" party here, there's an obvious similarity between them and the traditional Bethesda "LARPer".

 

[Irenaeus]

Ironically, while these players think they're the "hardcore" party here, there's an obvious similarity between them and the traditional Bethesda "LARPer".

Wow, that's harsh.

 

[Alex]

Infinitron

I would say there is a big difference between making the game challenging and fostering dynamics, and locking the player into a single, one way of doing things. It is an RPG we are talking about here, not an skirmish simulator. Making the world seem real and interactive is one of the most important goals it should have.

 

[Infinitron]

I would say there is a big difference between making the game challenging and fostering dynamics, and locking the player into a single, one way of doing things. It is an RPG we are talking about here, not an skirmish simulator. Making the world seem real and interactive is one of the most important goals it should have.

I don't disagree with this. Despite the comparison with LARPers, I have sympathy for both sides of the argument here.

Still, when somebody complains that Project Eternity, with its stamina regen, is depriving the player of his FREEDOM to choose not to heal or resurrect his characters - to me, that sounds kind of like a Bethesda LARPer complaining that he can't explore every single area of the world at level 1.

Those are the rules of the game, bro - freedom ain't got nothing to do with it.

 

[Delterius]

All the items that you'd lose, in case bashing damages the contents of a chest.

All the resources you must spend in order to fight battles of increased difficulty, in case of bashing alerting enemies to your presence.

All the resources you'd spend in order to cope with the costs of suffering traps now and again.

You're speaking in nonexistent hypotheticals. No game that allows you to bash chests and doors open has SEVERE CONSEQUENCES for doing so.

We are all talking in non-existant hypotheticals which you dismissed with a half arsed argument.

Thing is, Sawyer dismissed lockbashing because it can be a better option than lockpicking. And, fact is, people here are advocating lockbashing as merely another cool way to interact with the gameworld, not in any way more efficient than lockpicking. And, IMO, this would be a much more organic way to convey lockpicking's importance than simply 'force' the player to have it.

 

[Infinitron]

Instead of lockpicking or lockbashing, you could have a generic "lock opening" skill which covers both methods. (mechanically, it could be influenced by Str as well as Dex.)

 

[Excidium]

Bashing as skill is p. retarded.

 

[Irenaeus]

Bashing should be a simple action, success based on STR or WPN DMG, not a skill.

 

[Excommunicator]

Not including the option to shoot/blow up a lock smacks of lazy design. You could have quests or areas where opening locks quietly or without damage has an advantage. Framing people, areas where straight combat is harder than stealth, etc.

JESawyer 23 Sep 11
No, it was an intentional choice to avoid the obvious side-effect of making Lockpicking obsolete for a bunch of character builds.

.....giving a player multiple skills to open a locked door when one of the skills is for opening locks and the other skill is for killing enemies *and opening locks* actually reduces the number of sensible player builds. ....

You have a lot to learn Mr Sawyer. The only valid response to "bashing locks is not an option" is "we have it low priority/limited resources"

Ideas have no balance. Only your implementation does.

If you spend points in Lockpick, congrats: you get to open locks. You chose to not spend points on something else, meaning you sacrificed something for that ability. If you didn't spend points in Lockpick, that's too bad.

This is why RPGs haven't yet evolved. Designers stuck in extremely simple mindsets. Your game will never simulate anything, especially not a roleplaying system.

 

[Moribund]

Lockpick is probably one of the more annoying things in RPGs. I don't usually get pulled out of my immershuns by things being too gamey but someone is going to stop in the middle of a dungeon and take out a set of wires and tinker with a lock for 45 minutes? After they just slew a dragon with their bare hands?

The problem with the "not enough time to implement" answer is it's too honest. Obshitian has a policy of 100% evasiveness.

 

[roshan]

I don't disagree with this. Despite the comparison with LARPers, I have sympathy for both sides of the argument here.

Still, when somebody complains that Project Eternity, with its stamina regen, is depriving the player of his FREEDOM to choose not to heal or resurrect his characters - to me, that sounds kind of like a Bethesda LARPer complaining that he can't explore every single area of the world at level 1.

Those are the rules of the game, bro - freedom ain't got nothing to do with it.

So now anyone who doesn't like Obsidian style autoresurrection is a Bethesda LARPer!

 

[roshan]

Roshan doesn't care about that, Mrowak. He wants to play in a sandbox with lots of options, not to play a challenging, tightly designed game.

So who cares what most players will do? It's the principle that counts. Simulationists gotta simulate.

There is nothing challenging about putting points into a skill and then getting loot as a reward. It's about as challenging as purchasing a packet of instant noodles. To call this "tightly designed" is just ridiculous, there's no fucking design at all. It's just performing a pointless routine activity.

 

[Shadenuat]

Josh needs to play Arcanum too, or watch Avellone do it. Then he'd learn one can actually have lockpicking, bashing and magic spell to unlock locks, while lockpicking being superior to everything else... because in soviet Arcanum, when you bash lock, NPCs bash YOU.

 

[Delterius]

I would say there is a big difference between making the game challenging and fostering dynamics, and locking the player into a single, one way of doing things. It is an RPG we are talking about here, not an skirmish simulator. Making the world seem real and interactive is one of the most important goals it should have.

I don't disagree with this. Despite the comparison with LARPers, I have sympathy for both sides of the argument here.

Still, when somebody complains that Project Eternity, with its stamina regen, is depriving the player of his FREEDOM to choose not to heal or resurrect his characters - to me, that sounds kind of like a Bethesda LARPer complaining that he can't explore every single area of the world at level 1.

Those are the rules of the game, bro - freedom ain't got nothing to do with it.

Wait, the resurrection at the end of combat isn't automatic?

Oh, by the way. Don't be silly. If you don't actually like stamina regen, you're not free to larp it away. Stamina regen is a big enough mechanic to affect the entirety of combat and encounter design.

 

[Infinitron]

Wait, the resurrection at the end of combat isn't automatic?

It is. Well, "waking up from unconsciousness" at the end of a battle if you've run out of stamina is.

It's analogous to being forced to spend a resurrection or raise dead spell at the end of a battle in the IE games. So it's like you're being deprived of the freedom to choose not to cast that spell.

 

[tuluse]

It is. Well, "waking up from unconsciousness" at the end of a battle if you've run out of stamina is.

It's analogous to being forced to spend a resurrection or raise dead spell at the end of a battle in the IE games.

Not really because you still lose health.

 

[roshan]

The only problem I see with it is that it is THE ideal solution. From the designer's standpoint bothering with alternative paths is but a hassle, because the player will *always* choose to pick the lock, and only if he fails, he will take advantage of other solutions. We will lead 6-men party here, so it will be easy to delegate one character specifically to learn opening locks. It's a non-brainer. The only thing that could limit lockpicking I can think if is damaging a lock with them so you won't be able to use a key (it was used in BaK). But what's save/load for?

In the end we end up with traditional approach: most containers will be locked, but if the quest demands it there will be "magical" lockpicking-proof locks, in which case you will be do some busywork, key-finding and puzzle-solving.

I think that's a good point, if one solution is ideal, and you've got six characters, you will definitely be able to take advantage of the ideal solution, someone will have extra points that you can allocate to the skill. I think the less ideal solutions will be primarily for those soloing the game, or with small parties. It would be interesting though if one could come up with some ideas for how to actually encourage players to mix things up even with an expert lockpicker in the party, beyond somewhat artificial limitations such as "lockpicking proof locks".

 

[Infinitron]

It is. Well, "waking up from unconsciousness" at the end of a battle if you've run out of stamina is.

It's analogous to being forced to spend a resurrection or raise dead spell at the end of a battle in the IE games.

Not really because you still lose health.

Yes, your health is analogous to your store of healing and resurrection spells in an IE game. It's the same basic mechanic but, well, streamlined, to use the strict definition of that word.