Sawyerism and High-Level Design

[Hormalakh]

I have been reading a lot of Josh Sawyer’s thoughts on high-level game design and while I agree with a lot of the things he says, I wanted to express my thoughts as a gamer about an observation that he’s made about gamers and would like feedback from other gamers regarding their own experiences. This was sparked by Josh’s comments about conversation [tags] and a post which I found on another forum (see the spoiler).

 

Okay, I'd really like everyone to read my response to this, because it's important to me.

A lot of people are not great at games. I don't mean they are terrible at them, but they aren't great. They may or may not realize this, but when you get right down to it and see them sit down at a game and start to play, they do pretty well but some stuff just slips by. In RPGs, often that error is a strategic one that you don't immediately get stung by. The poison bites you 10, 20, 30 hours down the road.

I don't know what sort of person you're picturing in your head, but from comments that a lot of people make, I get the feeling you see a moron, a person who doesn't really like games, who isn't enthusiastic about them in the same way that you are. In some cases, this is true. But I've seen hundreds of volunteer and professional testers come and go. Most of them are actually pretty intelligent. They like or love games. They like or love RPGs and have played a bunch of them. They're still not terrific at them. They miss a bunch of things and they make a bunch of mistakes.

Even among hardcore PC RPG fans, there is a wide spectrum of skill, experience, and preference. When I started at Black Isle, I designed a bunch of fights in IWD that only a handful of veteran BG testers could get through. Memorably, I saw a QA tester blow a fuse because a fight in Lower Dorn's Deep was "impossible". When I showed him how I got through it, I started off by having my casters go through six rounds of buffs. "What are you doing?" he asked. "Uh... buffing my party?" This seemed normal to me. DUH YEAH BUFF YOUR PARTY TO HELL AND BACK LOCK AND LOAD PAY ATTENTION FFFFFFFFFF. Despite his high experience with RPGs and Baldur's Gate, he just... never thought of it. The problem was that the entire fight was balanced around a party that was optimally built and lit up like a Christmas tree from stacked buffs.

That's a combat example, but it really applies across the board: conversation details, reputation loss/gain, etc. Some players really do play as hard as they say they will. They stoically accept the consequences of companion death, of a dialogue node they carelessly picked 8 hours ago, of an Ironman combat that is going down the drain. For those players, the ability to turn off the "in case you missed it..." features is important. I get that and would like to support it as much as we can.

But again, just to be clear, a lot of actual players actually need these things. I'm not saying this because players come up to me and say, "Josh, I need this." I'm saying this because I'll talk to a tester (volunteer or pro) with a ton of RPG experience and later watch him or her play remotely. Or I'll pop open a Let's Play on YouTube from an enthusiastic player and watch how things turn out. Sometimes they ace it, sometimes they don't. Either way, what I see on that monitor doesn't lie.

 

So, quite obviously, I’m not a game developer, but I can draw from my own experiences playing these games and maybe help Josh and other developers see our perspective on these games. This is big wall of text, so I've put my examples (usually D&D) and anecdotes in spoiler tags and kept the important bits.

 

In my experience, I think that most players are not “great at games,” not because they aren’t observant or paying attention, but that the games they play makes assumptions about them that are incorrect.

I use D&D here as an example, but it really deals with a lot of the RPG sequels I’ve played, and noticed this occurs less with new IPs. The first D&D game that I ever played was BG2 back when I was in high school, but it would take me until 8 years later to even realize that PnP D&D existed (and that it wasn’t in 2e). I wasn’t aware of how THAC0 worked when I first played that game, and I still didn’t understand how the XdY rules worked until after I played my first Pen and Paper game, eight years later. At that point I had played BG2 several times, and I had learned from playing the game how many of the D&D rules worked. That means for something like 12 years I was playing BG2 “WRONG”. But it never mattered because I was able to still “finish” the game with crutches (I’ll get to that later).

D&D is a very rich and complex game: one that many players have been playing for a long time. With that territory comes accepted ideas and assumptions made that not every new player is familiar with. So how do D&D-based computer games (DnD-PC games) teach the players the game?

 

 

There are let’s say, three kinds of players. I’ve been in each category:

1. Those that learned the D&D rules through PnP sessions and by playing with different DMs. These players see interesting tactics from fellow players/DMs and model them with constant feedback. These players got the most enjoyment from the PC game because they have a deeper understanding of game mechanics and tactics taught to them through the PnP game.
    
   
2. The computer player who learns by playing in a non-DMed PC single-player game and either reads strategy books or utilizes other people’s knowledge of D&D concepts as a source of feedback.
    
   
3. The computer player who learns by playing in the PC game without any feedback except from the game. They often are the ones to utilize “game crutches” or general gaming knowledge to get them past difficult scenarios.
   

I define game crutches as those methods that are not intended by the developers to be used as legitimate tactics when playing the game (save scumming, rest spamming, re-spec).

Some players understand this, and apply a “honor code rule” on themselves while playing them. Other gamers do not realize this intent from developers (and argue that since it’s allowed in the game it’s fine) and so do not consider them “crutches.” Quite often these players are the players from the third category. Brute forcing the game are symptoms of not learning the intended mechanics and continuing to use those methods to continue the story. At that point, the gamer has given up on understanding the game’s rules and has fallen back on “just finishing it” for the story. They weren’t required to know the P&P rules still, but do fine. And if they cannot pass certain stages, they rage-quit or, if they want it enough, go searching for answers elsewhere.

Unless they have first experienced the game in a teaching setting (done in a P&P setting with the DM, for example) – that teaches them the concepts like buffing, the utility of certain spells, etc – many continue to rely on game crutches until they no longer work.

Now many times, tutorials are utilized in games to “teach” players how to play the game, and most often all of it happens at the beginning of the game. Even then, they often only teach the player only how to utilize the interface and what they need to manipulate in the GUI to achieve their outcome. What many of these, especially D&D games lack, is a “tutorial” that conveys its mechanics and game concepts– not of how to interact with the software, but how the game mechanics work. I’m not talking about teaching me how to cast a spell, but the concepts behind spells and how they work. It is, in a way, teaching me how the puzzle pieces work together and starting me off on some tactics that I should be aware of.

Games, especially tactically-oriented ones, need to teach their players the initial mechanical concepts and ideas behind the game both in the manual and/or to re-emphasize those concepts while they play the game without making assumptions about their knowledge.

Now, there is no reason to beat your players over the head with these “tutorials.” In fact they shouldn’t even seem like tutorials.

Humans learn by modeling behavior. If I see the computer is doing something as he does it, I will try to follow him. As an example, Starcraft does this in its single-player missions. It teaches the player about each new unit on a separate level, and the player is expected to master that unit by the next stage. Then, as players watch the computer play in a custom game, they further learn how to start on the right path towards tactical strategy and then try to mimic that. That is the first step in them becoming more tactical players. At the same time, more experienced players, if realizing that a certain encounter (Irenicus’s Dungeon in BG2) is a tutorial, become quickly bored and wish to skip that whole portion of the game - SC's single player mode for example.

 

For me, playing BG2 for a 6^th time (4 months ago) with the tactical mod, Sword Coast Stratagems II, served as a tutorial. And it did it in the first dungeon too. The game became completely new for me, and the combat tactics were challenging. After playing the same game 5 times prior, the SCS mod was the first time in which I actually figured out that buffs mattered (and I learned a lot of other tactics). I died in Irenicus’s dungeon more than 5 or 6 times when playing the game again, because I was literally playing with a crutch – I was trying to utilize the same old tactics that worked in the past. Except this time I had a little bit of knowledge from the PnP experiences that I’d played. The issue was that the game never introduced those concepts to me and I was never challenged on them previously. I never had to learn how to buff my characters until I was forced to learn how to manage my spell resources. I wasn’t allowed to rest-spam in the dungeon and so just getting magic missiles and using them on all of the goblins wouldn’t get me past the duergar later. I later realized that fireball isn’t always the best spell to memorize and that other “buff” spells have actual uses. Because magic missile is so obvious in its utility, you need a similarly obvious method of showing the utility of spirit shield, for example.

 

 

This idea of a “conceptual tutorial” should be done early and as new concepts are introduced, throughout the game. An example, let players know (somehow) early in the game that conversation tags don’t exist and that they will not always know immediately all dialogue options. Let them know some of them are hidden. “Meta-game” this information in-game.

Those that didn’t know, now do. Then continue to utilize this concept. Avellone talks about how he wished that in FONV he would have utilized the Lanius change up in dialogue earlier and how it wasn’t fair to players that he pulled that on them because players were in a different mind-set. This is a new world, you can start to build your player’s mind-set up from the beginning. Let us know that “This isn’t D&D, although some of it is similar, so pay attention. You need to learn the concepts.”

 

 

This doesn’t mean make your tutorials easy or obvious. Convey the concepts intuitively. Nor do you have to expound on every iterative concept and its corollary.

Don’t build Irenicus’s dungeon – and make everyone suffer through a tutorial. Make the tutorials as non-intrusive as a story exposition should be. I feel that this would have been helpful for someone like your tester playing Lower Dorn’s Deep. I think if there was an early encounter in the game, where you’re never able to beat the enemies, but are forced only to “survive” through the correct choices of buffs (you need to survive 5 minutes and the only to do so is by buffing – your NPC mentor tells you that), then players start to realize the power in buffs. This is also not to say to make the game easy; make it tough and unforgiving and challenging (SCS II)– but allow players a resource that sets them on the path towards finding their answers. In Might and Magic 3,4,5 for example, if you’re familiar with the game, you realize that not everyone needs to have the “Pathfinder” or “Mountaineer” skills for you to travel everywhere. But if you aren’t aware of it, an inn lets you know about it.

 

 

 

Finally challenge players with these concepts. Once initial concepts have been set in place, build upon those concepts.

Now that I know one of the assumptions is buffing/or hidden dialogues, I continue to play with that mentality throughout the rest of the game. Good games always teach the player how to use its tools and then set them off to try out new techniques with those tools. Perhaps lower skill (easy difficulty) players aren’t interested in the tactics, so don't challenge them as much on these tactics, but then normal players should be challenged. They should have learned from the concepts you have taught them and when they have successfully employed those concepts they are ready to continue adventuring forth. Lower Dorn's Deep probably needed a buffing reminder before you went in. For those people who can’t get it the first time, maybe having hints and “inn rumors” that more obviously express these ideas can be beneficial.

 

 

So, this is my own experiences and thoughts on the matter. As an individual these are obviously anecdotal and count only for an n=1, but I believe many players fall into the same hurdles, and developers rarely realize this. This isn't because they aren't gamers: it's because they are gamers with lots of experience in their field that it occurs. Once you start making assumptions, you find it difficult to realize why people aren't getting it. In fact, I've noticed myself doing the same thing with other forum members when talking about tactics. I just don't get how they don't "see" the tactics involved.

[JFSOCC]

This is the best thread yet

I too have been using crutches to beat games in the past. As for Baldurs gate, I'm noticing I'm playing these types of games better than I did at 15, especially the buffing.

A good tutorial is subtle enough that it doesn't look like a tutorial, but yes. rather than build on the assumption of ignorance from the player, you should rather subtly let your players know what they can expect. It's ok to fail them in places to force them to become better players. but they should realise why they failed, else they won't learn.

[Dream]

These are video games first and PnP D&D simulations a very distant second (and P:E wont even be that; it's a straight up video game). The things you describe aren't "crutches" they're just the way video games are played. If you feel that the way another person plays a game is "wrong" then that's your opinion, but don't call it a crutch.

 

Hell, I'm sure there's someone out there that feels save and exit is a crutch and all games should be played in one sitting (go big or go home), but it doesn't mean that's the way it is.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Dream

[Infinitron]

I agree that tutorials (or "tutorials") in many games are all wrong, focusing on teaching basic functionality instead of how to manipulate core game mechanics.

 

Some developers are good at this, though. Valve games have excellent "tutorials", but they have the advantage of being linear, relatively simple games.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Infinitron

[Zenning]

Just to add to the general thread, check out this video from Extra-Credits on tutorials

 

http://www.penny-arc...e/tutorials-101

 

It covers a lot of what you just said, which is pretty great.

 

Also, let me just add that the first time going through Baulders gate, I had no idea what the hell I was doing. I cheated the hell out of my self, and I just didn't really like the fights because I'd just get my ass kicked, and just didn't enjoy it at all. But, going back to it almost a decade later in the enhanced edition, after playing Pathfinder, and a few more games for about 4 years, and reading through the manual (Seriously, thats a goddamn novel right there), I've just had so much more fun.

 

I'm just sad that they didn't teach the game like you, and extra credits, have mentioned. I've gotta say that games have gotten a lot better about these kinds of things, adding in tool tips, and secondary tutorials if a player gets stuck. Sometimes it seems like they go too far in the opposite direction, telling us the obvious, and literally telling us to do, but I've never felt as frustrated with these new games as I did when I played Baulders gate way back when.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Zenning

[NerdBoner]

I totally agree with what the op is saying...HOWEVER, I am one of those players who rarely, almost never in fact, buffs anything outside of my mages/clerics, opting instead to use the occasional haste potion on my melee classes and any items they might have with special abilities.

 

Personally I prefer there to be multiple approaches to situations: take for example that Lower Dorn's deep situation. It would never in a million years occur to me to resort to 6 rounds of casting buffs (yawn)...Instead i'd strategically position my own party in choke points/high ground etc. and lure the enemy out with my hasted rogue who can either backstab, pepper them with arrows or lay traps for them.

 

This approach allows me to test enemy defenses with minimal risk and even make enemy mages waste spells they will need later. Ideally I end up picking off a few weaker enemies and lure the bulk into an ambush of my own, thus eliminating entirely the need for tedious buffing (outside of essentials like stoneskin/mirror image/haste).

 

so yeah, I'm an anti-buffer, not because i'm lazy, I'd just rather get creative and "outsmart" my enemies rather than "oh look, so and so enemies: lets cast buff 1, 3, 4 and 7" blah...

 

this is why rogues rule; i've ended numerous difficult encounters by using my rogues to take out enemy casters unawares (lovely backstab baby) and then leading the "enraged" melee into snares or a mage bomb (horrid wilting for example)for me, that is the best approach and provides a longer more satisfying encounter.

Edited December 10, 2012 by NerdBoner

[Valsuelm]

Sawyer is correct that not all gamers are 'great' at games. In fact, most are not.

 

However, you are also correct OP in that one of the big reasons that players aren't better at game X is often due to poor or incomplete documentation on how to play the game. Modern video game developers are generally very bad at providing a good manual with the game. Some are so bad that their manual is almost non existent and they rely on their players to figure things out and inform the rest of the player community (MMOs are especially bad about this).

 

His example though of the guy who just didn't think to buff.... well I'd say that's a guy who didn't put too much thought into the spells he was using or bother to read their descriptions, same for potions. A big problem with many video game players is that even if that super awesome manual full of information is provided they don't read it. That said, all of us, even the most uber awesome game players ever, miss something from time to time.

 

I can tell you that whenever I play a new game that has any kind of learning curve, I read the manual. Then I play the game for awhile, referencing the manual if/when I need to to look up something that I remember seeing in there. Then after a number of played hours and I think I have the game pretty much down, I go back and read the manual again. You will not master a game that has a learning curve if you don't do this.

 

One thing I hope that PE does have is a very comprehensive and informative manual.

[Hormalakh]

Some developers are good at this, though. Valve games have excellent "tutorials", but they have the advantage of being linear, relatively simple games.

 

I do think that good "tutorials" are ****ing hard to make. "Puzzle" tutorials and many other mechicanically simple games are much easier to write tutorials for. But how do you do one for a game as complex as an RPG? How do you explain things to people without them falling asleep halfway through your explanation and at the same time not pissing off the expert players?

 

@Nerdboner Most people, I'm sure would have figured it out. Some don't or some utilize crutches as I mentioned.

 

@Valsuelm As for the manual, I will have to agree. I did read the BG2 manual, but honestly, somethings cannot be detailed in a written work: people can and do misintrepret written works all the time. As it stands though, most manuals do not convey game concepts well in any case. In BG2's case, it never explained the XdY concept very well to me. I was young at the time and I wasn't sure if 1d8 was better or 2d4. I thought for a long time that 1d8 meant 1-8 and 2d4 meant 2-4.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Malekith]

These are video games first and PnP D&D simulations a very distant second (and P:E wont even be that; it's a straight up video game). The things you describe aren't "crutches" they're just the way video games are played. If you feel that the way another person plays a game is "wrong" then that's your opinion, but don't call it a crutch.

 

Hell, I'm sure there's someone out there that feels save and exit is a crutch and all games should be played in one sitting (go big or go home), but it doesn't mean that's the way it is.

Read his post again. As "crutches" he describes"I define game crutches as those methods that are not intended by the developers to be used as legitimate tactics when playing the game (save scumming, rest spamming, re-spec)." So its not Hormalakh's opinion, it's the dev's. And yes the devs have the right to tell you which way to play the game is wrong.

Having said that, i'm not sure that elliminating ways to play the game "wrong" is for the best. In Fallouts i loved that you could finish the game in 10 minutes.It was not how the devs wanted the game to be played,but it was viable. Same with IE games.I'm not sure that strict control on how the game is played will make the game more fun, but until i see how it plays i retain an open mind about it.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Malekith

[Hormalakh]

I mean "degenerate playing" as described by devs when I say "crutches." These are "degenerate" game-play not because we the players are degenerate people. It's because we utilize them as tactics to get us through the difficult portions of the game. It wasn't meant to be an insult.

 

@Zenning: I watched that episode too and while it informed my observation here, I feel that not everything applies to RPGs. But yes that video and another one : http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=/watch%3Fv%3D8FpigqfcvlM were pretty influential.

 

Yet both of these games are fairly "simple" in their mechanics and concepts. There isn't much to "teach". RPGs have a bunch of stuff they need to "teach."

Edited December 10, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Dream]

These are video games first and PnP D&D simulations a very distant second (and P:E wont even be that; it's a straight up video game). The things you describe aren't "crutches" they're just the way video games are played. If you feel that the way another person plays a game is "wrong" then that's your opinion, but don't call it a crutch.

 

Hell, I'm sure there's someone out there that feels save and exit is a crutch and all games should be played in one sitting (go big or go home), but it doesn't mean that's the way it is.

Read his post again. As "crutches" he describes"I define game crutches as those methods that are not intended by the developers to be used as legitimate tactics when playing the game (save scumming, rest spamming, re-spec)." So its not Hormalakh's opinion, it's the dev's. And yes the devs have the right to tell you which way to play the game is wrong.

Having said that, i'm not sure that elliminating ways to play the game "wrong" is for the best. In Fallouts i loved that you could finish the game in 10 minutes.It was not how the devs wanted the game to be played,but it was viable. Same with IE games.I'm not sure that strict control on how the game is played will make the game more fun, but until i see how it plays i retain an open mind about it.

 

Except who's to say the devs didn't intend that, or are you telling me that after 2 plus decades of save anywhere video game developers still don't realize that people do, in fact, save anywhere? One could even argue that quick save/load was added specifically to facilitate "save scumming" since the general trend of players was to save a **** load. The Fallout manual even says something along the lines of "save before doing anything."

 

He's defining crutches as thinks he assumes the developers didn't intend, hence my original statement.

[JWestfall]

I do think that good "tutorials" are ****ing hard to make. "Puzzle" tutorials and many other mechicanically simple games are much easier to write tutorials for. But how do you do one for a game as complex as an RPG? How do you explain things to people without them falling asleep halfway through your explanation and at the same time not pissing off the expert players?

 

This was my thought - the complexity inherent in RPGs leads to emergent behaviors that can be tricky to expose without a ton of testing. D&D especially is a complicated animal (arguably, needlessly complicated), so a move towards a better streamlined rule system will likely help. "Easy to learn, hard to master" is the typical mantra for developing gameplay.

[Hormalakh]

This is why I'm glad I'm not a developer, let alone one as highly regarded as Obsidian. They've got a bunch of hurdles to cross and gamers demand the best.

[Doppelschwert]

Although you're points are all valid and good hormalakh, I think there are still some dimensions you're missing in your analysis.

For example, I know how most DnD 2e and 3.5e rules work although I never played the PnP version, as I've picked them up with the DnD games and some wikis.

However, I feel like many things which you categorize as crutches simply save time. To be honest, I don't feel like buffing my party 6 rounds ahead of combat. I don't feel like casting "Heal light wounds" 10 times in a row. Thats tedious, doesn't enrich my experience in any way and costs precious time.

"Blasphemy!", one might say, "you don't want to take your time to play the game and just want to rush through it, leave these forums!"

Well, no. I'd take my time with the game, but I only have that much free time to fool around playing video games. So why should I spend a minute to cast 10 spells when I could hit the rest switch and be done with it? When I get to play, I'd rather clear a dungeon floor instead of doing the half of it and patting myself on the back for looking at casting animations for half the time.

 

Also, there are problems with gamebalance. Normaly, the game designers have a certain party composition in mind when they design the encounters. Right now, I'm playing IWD2 with a certain roleplaying party concept. The rules are to use all monks in the beginning and make interesting multiclasses with them. No powergaming stats like dropping charisma to 3 either. So what gives? The party sucks big time. I don't have a full level mage, so I'm not able to use fireball when the game expects me to by sending 20 goblins after me. So the only viable option left to me is to fall back to some save scumming and rest spamming for some time in the beginning, as the game is not designed in a balanced way. A new player could have picked the same party, and he wouldn't have had a chance, without it being his fault. (Don't get me wrong, I don't expect a game to be completable no matter what, and I know that my party is bad, but I'm having fun since I'm lvl 6, so there is no problem in the end - playing is about having fun, first of all, whatever that means to you).

 

I propably won't buff in PE either if it will be that tedious as well. However, if you could toggle buffs to be cast automatic as soon as they are gone, things would be different. It's not about losing the tactical decisions associated with buffing, its just about making them accesible in a more friendly way and less tedious way. I think the concept of combat modes is much better, both from a tactical and a practical point of view, without losing complexity.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Doppelschwert

[coffeetable]

So maybe I missed this, but what in the sweet fanny adams is Sawyerism? Is it anything more specific than "all the stuff Joshua E. Sawyer has ever said"?

Edited December 10, 2012 by coffeetable

[Hormalakh]

@coffeetable The game design philosophy of Josh Sawyer, yes.

[AwesomeOcelot]

Learning curve is kind of important if you're only running into problems 20 or 30 hours in, and the game hasn't prepared you or kicked your arse, there's something wrong with the game fundamentally. The way I learned was by doing failed runs of a game (experimenting basically), later by reading websites, and even later by playing multiplayer and MMO with others. I don't think you can solve this problem without losing something, a RPG is never going to have the perfect learning curve of Portal. Then again no game really assumes that you're starting from scratch, every genre uses conventions.

 

Holy **** buffing is boring, passive aura please or make it a single use strategical buff, at a minimum make it auto cast. I get frustrated when annoying mechanics get in the way of how I want to play, like a single teleporting enemy making my party composition non-viable or the stupid repair mechanic in New Vegas/Fallout 3. I definitely think Josh has a point about designing games around how people play games, not around how others talk about playing games.

[Wirdjos]

It took me a long time to figure it out, but I am definitely of the third group you described, Hormalakh. And I'm not great at games. I enjoy them, especially RPGs, so I've gotten good enough at playing them. But I do miss things constantly and I am well aware that I don't fully understand IE games. I know there's something I'm missing, I just can't figure out what it is. For that reason at least, I found your post (and the Sawyer post that inspired it) to be very interesting. I'm glad a developer is looking out for players like me and I hope they're better able to teach the game mechanics than most, but I would really like to be better at games myself. Should I pick up a D&D book and start there or do I need to sit down at a table with others to figure it out? I guess what I'm asking is if you think the gap between enthusiastic players that are okay and players that are great revolves mainly around understanding rules/mechanics or getting feedback from other players?

 

this is why rogues rule; i've ended numerous difficult encounters by using my rogues to take out enemy casters unawares (lovely backstab baby) and then leading the "enraged" melee into snares or a mage bomb (horrid wilting for example)for me, that is the best approach and provides a longer more satisfying encounter.

 

I thought rogues were just walking trap-be-gone until I easily took out an entire room of enemies that were single handedly dropping my whole party using only Annah and liberal backstabbing. Rogues indeed rule and I wouldn't know that if the game hadn't challenged me.

[Tigranes]

Buffing is great, and removing it altogether would just simplify the gameplay - too much cost. As Sawyer said once, there's a super simple solution - allow customizable buff package scripts and tie it to hotkeys / quick bar so you can cast Buff Set #1, #2, etc.

[Monte Carlo]

As a hyper-elite Tier One operator from a wargaming background, I don't get what Sawyer is saying.

 

I grew up with Squad Leader and hex paper. All of this is second nature.

 

I blame story-tymers and promancers myself.

[Karkarov]

As a hyper-elite Tier One operator from a wargaming background, I don't get what Sawyer is saying.

 

I grew up with Squad Leader and hex paper. All of this is second nature.

 

I blame story-tymers and promancers myself.

He is saying that designing your game around the concept that every player will know the system inside and out, make no mistakes, and have a perfectly built team of twinks is bad game design. Because the truth of the matter is the vast majority of players won't have that team or play that way. They are making a game for people who like PC RPG's, not people who are mix maxing monty haul twink masters.

 

In simpler terms. A fight that requires you to have a mage in your party with this specific set of spells to be winnable is a poorly designed fight. Why? Because it forces the player to bring a mage with those spells. The player should have the right to play with whatever team they want and still be effective (within reason). If you ultimately plan to force a specific party make up then there was no point in giving the player control over party creation to begin with.

[Monte Carlo]

Ah, so he is saying that suckers deserve an even break, right?

[Zenning]

Ah, so he is saying that suckers deserve an even break, right?

 

Or that building your single player game around the top .1 percent of players, is probably not a good idea.

 

Having a mode for that kind of group is all well and good, but making it difficult, or impossible, for majority of players to be able to get passed specific segments without brute forcing, or out right cheating is not.

 

Example. Ever played an adventure game that had that one puzzle that just didn't make any goddamn sense? Like, you think about it, and you try what you think makes sense, and nothing seems to work. Finally you throw up your hands, and just try random **** to see what works, and you realize that the moon needed to be combined with the soup cans to make the sun laser. And you just think "What kind of insane breed of logic is this?"

 

Well, thats not good design. And honestly, since many players don't catch every thing the first time through, some combats which the player doesn't realize how to counter, feel just like that.

 

If you want an example of good difficulty design, it'd be Dark Souls.

 

See, there is no right way to go through an encounter in Dark Souls. There's just a billion wrong ways. It doesn't require you to learn every facet of the game to beat a specific part, just that you hone the parts that you do know. Sure, there are infinitely easier ways to fight the 4 kings, but the fact that I can actually run in, and fight them anyway I want, and win, is how the difficulty should be handled.

 

What I'm trying to say is that the Developer shouldn't build the game around what he considers the most twinked out party there is, but around the fact that every player will have a different approach to the combat. It won't always be easier going one way or an other, but it should always be possible. There should be no sun laser I have to make to get passed any single part.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Zenning

[Sacred_Path]

I hope P:E will have so much tactical depth as to allow the player to become gradually better, rather than there being one valid approach. If there is only way to do it (cast all your buffs at once before combat, durr), it's only a one-time learning matter. I hope they limit rest spamming and so make choosing the right buffs at the right time for your party setup a real challenge, rather than casting all your stuff at once.

 

I'm all for a starting area that's a bit tough and thereby forces you to become proficient at playing the game right away, with a good mix of enemies where you learn by doing.

 

Also, as for player skill... I'd like to think that most gamers have a modicum of intelligence. So it comes down to

 

a) how well does the game/ manual explain the rules and what's going on behind the scenes

 

b) how much does the game challenge you. I think in RPGs especially a lot of people never become good at a game simply because the rely on the "crutch" of saving; if you forced them to play in an Ironman mode (or if they chose that mode) they would in all probability become better. If they don't ragequit all the time ofc.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Sacred_Path

[PrimeJunta]

Good thread.

 

Golden age cRPG's were merciless. They just basically threw you into the world and had you figure it out from there. So it's hardly surprising that you go wtf, buffs? if nothing and nobody has introduced the concept, except mmmaybe some small print on page 52 of a manual you skimmed through once.

 

Fortunately games have gotten a lot better in this respect since. There is a pretty strong convention of having some in-game introduction of a mechanic once it first comes up, even if it's not a straight-out tutorial (which I don't care for much). It's a fine line to balance, though; Valve does it a bit too well for example, which makes Half-Life 2 etc. feel more like a rat running through a maze than a game where you have actual agency, even for a linear shoot-em-up.

 

So yeah, I very much agree that degenerate gaming is symptomatic of failure -- either failure of the game design itself, or failure of the game design to communicate itself to the player. More commonly the latter, I would suspect. I'm really hoping Sawyer meets his goal of minimizing it. In a system as complex as P:E it's bound to be impossible to eliminate it completely, but it's one area where it can certainly improve massively upon its antecedents. Here's to hoping.