Interview RPG Codex Community Q&A: Project Eternity with Josh Sawyer

[villain of the story]

You had no point to respond to; you were just being stupid.

edit: Oh I had edited that second part before I saw your post, if that constitutes a reply to you being stupid.

 

[Infinitron]

You had no point to respond to; you were just being stupid.

edit: Oh I had edited that second part before I saw your post, if that constitutes a reply to you being stupid.

Nope, that's still not a response. Whether or not you can develop your stats has no bearing on the degree of simulation/realism they impart. A stealth-focused non-RPG's invisible behind-the-scenes "stats" allow it to simulate complex stealth mechanics to a greater degree than any RPG is expected to.

 

[villain of the story]

You are pursuing a retarded point that is so irrelevant to my argument.

 

[Cosmic Misogynerd]

Infijewtron gonna Infijewtron. Making every Obsidian/inXile thread he post an unbearable read.

 

[jewboy]

IIRC Sawyer criticized certain traditional RPG elements as being overly simplistic by compariing them to Rock, Paper, Scissors. But instead of trying to improve these elements individually by making them more complex and mentally challenging he has decided that some cannot be saved and is more or less deleting them entirely. Infinitron is correct in that losing the mini-gamish aspect of rolling character stats is not really a great loss. And Sawyer is right that their effect on gameplay was never really all that great. They just refined how good you were at being your particular class. A fighter with a strength of 20 was just exceptionally good at his main role of whacking things hard. A wizard with an INT of 20 could memorize more spells and at least in 2nd Ed. not much else. Since limiting the types of spells you could cast does seem to limit combat choices and make the game less fun having the option to have a wizard with an INT of only 10 or something doesn't seem to be all that useful. Although he hasn't eliminated stats entirely it sounds like he has neutered their usefullness by trying to make all of them equally ful of win. Ultimately I don't think it really matters. What matters is what Sawyer plans to do to make combat complex and strategic. I'm not yet clear on what that might be. Some essential elements of strategic and complex combat do require some key stats though. Good AI requires that your enemies at least have an INT stat and maybe some kind of Perception stat to see how much they can figure out about the strengths and weaknesses of your party just by looking.

 

[Zeriel]

Yeah, I am myself of the "improve it, not throw it out" school of thought. There's so much of this in modern gaming.

"Well, I have this problem with the way things used to be done, so I'm going to completely THROW AWAY EVERYTHING WE'VE LEARNED ABOUT GAME DESIGN SINCE THE 70'S, and come up with my own stupid ideas that will have even more flaws."

 

[Ninjerk]

But what is he really throwing away? Based on what little I saw in the Obsidian PnP D&D sesh a few months ago, he sounds like someone that's been running dungeons long enough to understand how that system works (nevermind the actual game design work he's done).

 

[Zeriel]

My impression of his take on those games is that they are garbage that he only plays because they have nothing else to play (he's actually been quoted by Roguey to this intent on a number of times). Hardly encouraging words from a game designer.

I'm always wary of designers who think they can start over from scratch and make something better. If you think you don't need to stand on the shoulders of giants, you're probably wrong. It's not that they're necessarily mistaken about the flaws--but they tend to overestimate their own talent in doing better.

 

[Septaryeth]

I'm a bit confused. Let's say I'm role-playing an old, experienced warrior, who's seen many battles in his life.
But he's is stubbornly old fashioned and therefore cannot catch up with the current of advancement.

Assuming I got a total of 90 pts to spend, here is what I normally would go for.
STR: 18, DEX: 18, CON: 18, INT: 9, WIS: 18, CHA:9. (I might tune down CHA for more INT).

Now transfer this character to PE. What kind of attributes should I be expecting?
And how will they differ from that of a ... uh ... a charismatic, powerful but naive young wizard?

 

[Infinitron]

I'm a bit confused. Let's say I'm role-playing an old, experienced warrior, who's seen many battles in his life.
But he's is stubbornly old fashioned and therefore cannot catch up with the current of advancement.

Assuming I got a total of 90 pts to spend, here is what I normally would go for.
STR: 18, DEX: 18, CON: 18, INT: 9, WIS: 18, CHA:9. (I might tune down CHA for more INT).

Now transfer this character to PE. What kind of attributes should I be expecting?
And how will they differ from that of a ... uh ... a charismatic, powerful but naive young wizard?

How can anybody answer this question without knowing what PE's attributes are

My impression of his take on those games is that they are garbage that he only plays because they have nothing else to play (he's actually been quoted by Roguey to this intent on a number of times). Hardly encouraging words from a game designer.

I'm always wary of designers who think they can start over from scratch and make something better. If you think you don't need to stand on the shoulders of giants, you're probably wrong. It's not that they're necessarily mistaken about the flaws--but they tend to overestimate their own talent in doing better.

http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/476555580379526832

 

[Zeriel]

That reminds me, his love for Darklands is one of the things that tempts me into viewing Sawyer as a bro. I'd love to see Obsidian do some tiny-budget Darklands clone some day, especially now that they're kind of bookending the text-adveture mechanics in Project Eternity.

 

[jewboy]

I like the more scripted feeling of those fights even if I didn't like the rock/paper/scissors nature of some of the hard counters.

My main complaint with BG2 combat is the hard-counter wizard fights. I don't think hard-counters belong in a game where you can easily, unintentionally, build a party that lacks the hard-counter. I also don't think save or die effects belong in a game with save/reload, but that's a larger issue with 2nd and some elements of 3rd Edition A/D&D. Notably, it's mostly absent from 4E and I think that aspect of the game is better for it.

This worries me. Other than TOEE the wizard fights in BG2, particularly with SCSII enhancements, are the most fun I've had in RPG combat. It is true that the spell vs counter-spell thing is a bit Rock Paper Scissors but it was fun and fun is the point. Also the Rock Paper Scissors criticism is about a game element being overly simplistic. To fix that you increase the complexity so that Chess becomes a better comparison. You don't eliminate it because it means that it becomes too difficult to solo the game as a Bard. I'm not sure what he means by a "hard-counter". Is he referring to something like Web vs. Free Action? I wish he would give a specific example of a combat element in BG2 that he disliked. Or maybe he has and I just haven't seen it.

 

[Infinitron]

I like the more scripted feeling of those fights even if I didn't like the rock/paper/scissors nature of some of the hard counters.

My main complaint with BG2 combat is the hard-counter wizard fights. I don't think hard-counters belong in a game where you can easily, unintentionally, build a party that lacks the hard-counter. I also don't think save or die effects belong in a game with save/reload, but that's a larger issue with 2nd and some elements of 3rd Edition A/D&D. Notably, it's mostly absent from 4E and I think that aspect of the game is better for it.

This worries me. Other than TOEE the wizard fights in BG2, particularly with SCSII enhancements, are the most fun I've had in RPG combat. It is true that the spell vs counter-spell thing is a bit Rock Paper Scissors but it was fun and fun is the point. Also the Rock Paper Scissors criticism is about a game element being overly simplistic. To fix that you increase the complexity so that Chess becomes a better comparison. You don't eliminate it because it means that it becomes too difficult to solo the game as a Bard. I'm not sure what he means by a "hard-counter". Is he referring to something like Web vs. Free Action? I wish he would give a specific example of a combat element in BG2 that he disliked. Or maybe he has and I just haven't seen it.

A hard counter is when you have an obstacle with one single solution that completely eliminates it. As opposed to "soft counters", which is when there's an obstacle with several valid solutions that merely reduce it.

Think "continuous" rather than "discrete" design.

 

[Grunker]

I'm not sure what he means by a "hard-counter".

He is referring to the fact that without the spell breach spells, it is nearly impossible to kill many wizards for some parties. However:

where you can easily, unintentionally, build a party that lacks the hard-counter

This is untrue in my mind. I have yet to hear from someone who, by accident, had a team composition in Baldur's Gate that made it impossible for them to counteract the defense spells. You can hardly "easily" end up with such a party. It's an extreme niche case that anyone would.

As usual, Sawyer uses hyperbole to support an argument which is true in some cases, making it seem like his point is universal. Probably my biggest grievance with the man.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I'm not sure what he means by a "hard-counter".

He is referring to the fact that without the spell breach spells, it is nearly impossible to kill many wizards for some parties. However:

Correct me if I'm wrong (it's been a long time since I've played BG2), but fighting wizards without Breach was merely difficult but not impossible. Which spells did they cast? Stoneskin? Protection from MW? Mantle?

Protection from MW lasts 4 rounds, so first, I'm pretty sure you can survive 4 rounds against most wizards (not talking about the most dangerous optional enemies like Kangaxx), second, you can switch to normal weapons, third, there is Dispel Magic (cleric, druid, paladin). Mantle can be bypassed with +3 weapons which you can get fairly early, way before you run into any wizards who cast Mantle. Stoneskin won't last long if the entire party gang up on the wizard.

where you can easily, unintentionally, build a party that lacks the hard-counter

This is untrue in my mind.

I agree.

 

[Karmapowered]

I'd love to see Obsidian do some tiny-budget Darklands clone some day, especially now that they're kind of bookending the text-adveture mechanics in Project Eternity.

That's a game I'd buy 1D.

 

[jewboy]

So he wants to avoid for instance disabling spells like Web which require a cleric with Free Action. If there is no cleric in your party or he does not have any Free Action spells memorized most of your party is likely to be slaughtered. Instead of just eliminating Web you could allow strength bonuses to add to saving throws so that at least your fighters can free themselves. Or you could make saving throws easier to make.

Some BG2 spells that Sawyer would delete:
Blindness
Charm Person
Chromatic Orb
Color Spray
Grease
Protection from Evil
Sleep
Spook
Deafness
Ghoul Touch
Glitterdust
Horror
Power Word Sleep
Ray of Enfeeblement
Stinking Cloud
Web
Dire Charm
Hold Person / Hold Undead
Slow
Confusion
Emotion: Hopelessness
Chaos
Cloudkill
Domination
Feeblemind
Death Fog / Death Spell
Disintegrate
Power Word Silence...

Basically he'd be deleting at least half the spells and many of the most powerful ones. It seems that the Rock Paper Scissors criticism could probably be applied to most cRPG combat involving magic. The mechanics are kind of simplistic. I just hope he isn't going to "fix" the system by making it even less complex. I hope the ability to solo the game as any class with any stats and any equipment and regardless of any bad decisions you might make doesn't trump all other considerations.

 

[Infinitron]

jewboy Nerfing instead of deleting is more likely.

 

[Septaryeth]

I'm a bit confused. Let's say I'm role-playing an old, experienced warrior, who's seen many battles in his life.
But he's is stubbornly old fashioned and therefore cannot catch up with the current of advancement.

Assuming I got a total of 90 pts to spend, here is what I normally would go for.
STR: 18, DEX: 18, CON: 18, INT: 9, WIS: 18, CHA:9. (I might tune down CHA for more INT).

Now transfer this character to PE. What kind of attributes should I be expecting?
And how will they differ from that of a ... uh ... a charismatic, powerful but naive young wizard?

How can anybody answer this question without knowing what PE's attributes are

Didn't people used to say someone here is Sawyer in disguise?

Anyway, I was just curious...because how can you go even more simplified than 6 stats,
while maintain that role-playing experience? It's mind boggling.

 

[Excidium]

Goddamn you are not jasede

 

[Starym]

So he wants to avoid for instance disabling spells like Web which require a cleric with Free Action. If there is no cleric in your party or he does not have any Free Action spells memorized most of your party is likely to be slaughtered. Instead of just eliminating Web you could allow strength bonuses to add to saving throws so that at least your fighters can free themselves. Or you could make saving throws easier to make.

I think in that example Web would simply slow movement to 10% of normal or so instead of completely stopping it. Still a very effective control spell, but not an insta win if you don't have the requisite counter. In that example it would even allow more complexity as the Barbarian could use his Wild Run (or whatever it's called) ability to quickly run out while the others were stuck, maybe he could go try kill the mage to end the spell etc etc. I do share your concern of simplification, but this game isn't going to have a spell list even remotely close to BG 2 (perhaps even BG1), simply due to the budget.

 

[Mrowak]

So he wants to avoid for instance disabling spells like Web which require a cleric with Free Action. If there is no cleric in your party or he does not have any Free Action spells memorized most of your party is likely to be slaughtered. Instead of just eliminating Web you could allow strength bonuses to add to saving throws so that at least your fighters can free themselves. Or you could make saving throws easier to make.

Some BG2 spells that Sawyer would delete:
Blindness
Charm Person
Chromatic Orb
Color Spray
Grease
Protection from Evil
Sleep
Spook
Deafness
Ghoul Touch
Glitterdust
Horror
Power Word Sleep
Ray of Enfeeblement
Stinking Cloud
Web
Dire Charm
Hold Person / Hold Undead
Slow
Confusion
Emotion: Hopelessness
Chaos
Cloudkill
Domination
Feeblemind
Death Fog / Death Spell
Disintegrate
Power Word Silence...

Basically he'd be deleting at least half the spells and many of the most powerful ones. It seems that the Rock Paper Scissors criticism could probably be applied to most cRPG combat involving magic. The mechanics are kind of simplistic. I just hope he isn't going to "fix" the system by making it even less complex. I hope the ability to solo the game as any class with any stats and any equipment and regardless of any bad decisions you might make doesn't trump all other considerations.

So, he'd remove all the most interesting crowd control spells...

Is he ?

 

[Mrowak]

I'm not sure what he means by a "hard-counter".

He is referring to the fact that without the spell breach spells, it is nearly impossible to kill many wizards for some parties. However:

where you can easily, unintentionally, build a party that lacks the hard-counter

This is untrue in my mind. I have yet to hear from someone who, by accident, had a team composition in Baldur's Gate that made it impossible for them to counteract the defense spells. You can hardly "easily" end up with such a party. It's an extreme niche case that anyone would.

Honestly, having hard counters and counters is one of the coolest aspects of BG2. Having magical dispels flying to and fro, triggering contingencies, unsummoning monsters, that made this game pretty much unique. So what does he intend to substitute that with?

As usual, Sawyer uses hyperbole to support an argument which is true in some cases, making it seem like his point is universal. Probably my biggest grievance with the man.

All too true. He is looking an answer to a problem that isn't there. Heck, in doing so he marks a functioning (albeit not perfect) mechanic as an issue. Now it seems to me his design keeps getting more and more generic.

 

[Grunker]

So he wants to avoid for instance disabling spells like Web which require a cleric with Free Action. If there is no cleric in your party or he does not have any Free Action spells memorized most of your party is likely to be slaughtered. Instead of just eliminating Web you could allow strength bonuses to add to saving throws so that at least your fighters can free themselves. Or you could make saving throws easier to make.

Some BG2 spells that Sawyer would delete:
Blindness
Charm Person
Chromatic Orb
Color Spray
Grease
Protection from Evil
Sleep
Spook
Deafness
Ghoul Touch
Glitterdust
Horror
Power Word Sleep
Ray of Enfeeblement
Stinking Cloud
Web
Dire Charm
Hold Person / Hold Undead
Slow
Confusion
Emotion: Hopelessness
Chaos
Cloudkill
Domination
Feeblemind
Death Fog / Death Spell
Disintegrate
Power Word Silence...

Basically he'd be deleting at least half the spells and many of the most powerful ones. It seems that the Rock Paper Scissors criticism could probably be applied to most cRPG combat involving magic. The mechanics are kind of simplistic. I just hope he isn't going to "fix" the system by making it even less complex. I hope the ability to solo the game as any class with any stats and any equipment and regardless of any bad decisions you might make doesn't trump all other considerations.

So, he'd remove all the most interesting crowd control spells...

Is he ?

That list is from jewboy's imagination, Sawyer never made a list. I'm quite surprised you out of all people fell from some random posters arbitrary shit. Sawyer was talking about Mage protection, not Web-Free Action.

 

[Mrowak]

That list is from jewboy's imagination, Sawyer never made a list. I'm quite surprised you out of all people fell from some random posters arbitrary shit. Sawyer was talking about Mage protection, not Web-Free Action.

Goddammit. Should have read the whole thing more thoroughly.