Tasteful Understated Nerdrage/MrBtongue Thread

[Shadenuat]

Guess what? PoE is too balanced.

 

[Morality Games]

Guy needs to turn his YouTube avatar into a zombie.

 

[Shadenuat]

Thumbs up the AoD comments

 

[Caconym]

Recommended viewing for Mr. Sawyer:

 

[Invictus]

Missed this guy...good video and good points without his usual high brow approach

 

[Infinitron]

Typical TUN, identifying something real but diagnosing it in a weird way - "lack of setting supremacy".

 

[28.8bps Modem]

He has come down from the mountain and has a new message from the LORD. See you next again next decade, Mr. Btongue.

 

[Monkeysattva]

Damn. When he said that POE had interesting characters and engaging story, my hart dropped. Well, guess it was becoming obvious from his last couple of videos... Sigh. Goodnight, sweet prince, and farts of neckbeards sing thee to thy rest.

Meh... He still comes to the right conclusions.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Typical TUN, identifying something real but diagnosing it in a weird way - "lack of setting supremacy".

Well, it's a good diagnosis, though :D .

 

[Athelas]

Reading the comments, it looks like he really struck a chord with old-school gamers:

This makes so much sense to me. I characterised this as emergent and charming gameplay formed from an acceptable level of 'glitchiness' in a game, but I was wrong. You're right, this kind of charm develops from the author making decisions and compromises that add this 'quirky charm' to the game but decrease its balance.

I was thinking about why I enjoyed Oblivion so much more than Skyrim and why

 

[HotSnack]

His point seems a little garbled due to the way he describes the "problem," but I think I agree with what he is saying: Unless you are trying to design GURPS, a rule system should be designed around the setting and its own internal logic, and not in a vacuum.

I've started playing PoE for the first time, and the system feels like someone's personal gripes against DnD. Like one of those forum posts you might read where a player would write a laundry list of changes he would do to the the rules to make it "better". So instead of playing a game in this new and genuinely interesting setting (interesting in how Edol and Durance describes it anyway, not from reading the loredump books), I'm playing the designer's "improved" version of not-FR using my not-dnd wizard casting my not-magic missiles. Compare with PST, a game that actually uses DnD rules, but in order to differentiate itself and sell its alien setting, they shake up the content of the game so that everything is familiar and yet not, with its exotic spells, equipment type, etc.

As for WL2DC:

Spoiler

On the Ag Center/Highpool choice: I actually liked it in a gamer designer-y way. That moment was definitely a "showcase level," like the beach house in VTMB it was there tell the player what they can expect out of the game. At the beach house, the player is shown that they can solve a quest in a variety of ways. While with Ag Center/Highool it establishes to the player that this is a game where there are Choices & Consequences, and this is not the kind of game where you can save everyone and be a big damn hero (though unfortunately, the game doesn't really follow through on either of those promises to the extent of that showcase level).

I can understand why someone may not like it due to it feeling possibly inorganic, though I am more forgiving of it as I see it as an extended tutorial, rather than due to designing in a vacuum.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

His point seems a little garbled due to the way he describes the "problem," but I think I agree with what he is saying: Unless you are trying to design GURPS, a rule system should be designed around the setting and its own internal logic, and not in a vacuum.

The problem is that rule systems aren't usually designed around setting and its internal logic but around game design concepts. Most of games won't simulate what would actually happen in the setting.

 

[DeepOcean]

Yeah, I agree with him, not a fan of sign post choices and variety>>>>>>>balance. People had been warning that focusing too much on balance would end bringing variety down but despite the patronizing Sawyer rebuttals, that was exactly what happened, PoE lacks choice hard. He was spot on too on Wasteland 2 problem of sign posting choices so hard that by the time you make said choices you don't feel you discovered an amazing different way of doing a quest but just chosen developer Path A instead of developer Path B and that is kinda boring. RPGs need to be more chaotic and less lawful, lawful characters are always boring.

 

[Infinitron]

His point seems a little garbled due to the way he describes the "problem," but I think I agree with what he is saying: Unless you are trying to design GURPS, a rule system should be designed around the setting and its own internal logic, and not in a vacuum.

The problem is that rule systems aren't usually designed around setting and its internal logic but around game design concepts. Most of games won't simulate what would actually happen in the setting.

But does that really describe the issues with the games he's talking about? PoE's system is just a balanced version of the IE games' D&D implementation made by a guy who likes balance and takes a conservative/iterative approach to adding "cheesy" features to his system. He also happens to be the same guy who came up with the setting.

TUN is in love with the word "setting" and uses it where it doesn't quite fit, like in his video about C&C. It's like his go-to word for anything he likes about RPGs.

 

[Roguey]

Didn't watch but

He definitely raises a good point about how in many RPGs the game mechanics seem to take priority over good writing.

haha no

 

[DeepOcean]

But does that really describe the issues with the games he's talking about? PoE's system is just a balanced version of the IE games' D&D implementation made by a guy who likes balance and takes a conservative/iterative approach to adding "cheesy" features to his system. He also happens to be the same guy who came up with the setting.

TUN is in love with the word "setting" and uses it where it doesn't quite fit, like in his video about C&C. It's like his go-to word for anything he likes about RPGs.

I think he is talking about something like Arcanum's magic/technology split and the crazy weapons of BG 2, he rambles a bit but his point is that game design should reinforce the setting not the other way around. DnD is about adventuring and grabbing that phat loot from dragons and BG 2 delivers, you adventure and get phat loot from dragons but Obsidian didn't know what PoE was about, some not DnD with balanced loot doesn't seem that interesting. PoE doesn't has that light adventuring tone of the BGs and when you kill the dragon, you get some shitty item barely better than a item you crafted hours ago. PoE has that souls thing that could be interesting if it was something more consequential and reflected on game mechanics like Arcanum's magic/technology split but on PoE it is just "generic bullshit excuse for everything".

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

His point seems a little garbled due to the way he describes the "problem," but I think I agree with what he is saying: Unless you are trying to design GURPS, a rule system should be designed around the setting and its own internal logic, and not in a vacuum.

The problem is that rule systems aren't usually designed around setting and its internal logic but around game design concepts. Most of games won't simulate what would actually happen in the setting.

But does that really describe the issues with the games he's talking about? PoE's system is just a balanced version of D&D made by a guy who likes balance and takes a conservative/iterative approach to adding "cheesy" features to his system. He also happens to be the same guy who came up with the setting.

I repeat. Games ALMOST NEVER simulate what would happen in the setting. That's the reason why he can do all the shit with the balance bullshit.

 

[AN4RCHID]

I don't really see how those older RPGs were intentionally designing their systems around the setting in most cases. To me it seems like the problem is that game design back then was more based on designer's intuition of what would be cool, whereas modern game design is calcified into best practices which tends to make it samey and uninteresting... but I don't think that's particularly more of a problem in the old school revival than any other modern games.

 

[Cadmus]

Nice video and indeed it seems old. I don't think of him as a regular video guy, he just makes interesting videos whenever about whatever. No reason to be wanting to be taken more seriously.

 

[Grotesque]

someone post this on Sawyer's twitter page or... something

 

[Lhynn]

I don't really see how those older RPGs were intentionally designing their systems around the setting in most cases.

Are you kidding me? flavor was extremely important in RPGs back in the day and all the rules were there to create or illustrate situations that you read about in books.

To me it seems like the problem is that game design back then was more based on designer's intuition of what would be cool, whereas modern game design is calcified into best practices which tends to make it samey and uninteresting... but I don't think that's particularly more of a problem in the old school revival than any other modern games.

Not really, old game design was about trying to adapt the setting to a rulebook, especial rules like wild magic, anti magic rays, components, ego for intelligent weapons, etc. All of this came from the setting first, they werent created as "interesting gameplay elements" but naturally arose from the narrative and were adapted into the system rules.
If anything i see modern game design as childish, obvious and safe and it is the reason i hate it so god damn much. People thinking its in any way "smarter" is fucking stupid and misses the point of the entire thing by a mile.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

My main problem with game design is all the Klingon shit going on. Fuck. Fucking Klingons.

 

[PeachPlumage]

Just send Sawyer the soundtrack

 

[AN4RCHID]

old game design was about trying to adapt the setting to a rulebook, especial rules like wild magic, anti magic rays, components, ego for intelligent weapons, etc. All of this came from the setting first, they werent created as "interesting gameplay elements" but naturally arose from the narrative and were adapted into the system rules. All of this came from the setting first, they werent created as "interesting gameplay elements" but naturally arose from the narrative and were adapted into the system rules.

There's rose tinted glasses, and then there's this. Sawyer has really done a number on some of you guys.

 

[Lhynn]

old game design was about trying to adapt the setting to a rulebook, especial rules like wild magic, anti magic rays, components, ego for intelligent weapons, etc. All of this came from the setting first, they werent created as "interesting gameplay elements" but naturally arose from the narrative and were adapted into the system rules. All of this came from the setting first, they werent created as "interesting gameplay elements" but naturally arose from the narrative and were adapted into the system rules.

There's rose tinted glasses, and then there's this. Sawyer has really done a number on some of you guys.

Wasnt talking about sawyer bro, was talking about most rpgs since 2005 or so.
Sawyer is just showing the extreme of the problem.