Josh Sawyer at GDC Europe 2011

[pmp10]

SAF's Alpha Protocol thread

 

Look what I saw at GDC Europe:

 

Oh yeah. I've been saying same for years... except I actually liked it but players in general hate it

 

That feature certainly don't have place in modern game design.

It did well enough in Borderlands.

AP simply screwed up too many other shooter aspects.

[Wombat]

Why now? They should have done all the homework before making Alpha Protocol...

 

I think one of the commonly important things between PnP RPG and its video game counter part is that the communication between GM/designers and the players. The tricky part would be that, in video games, designers and the players cannot communicate in real time manner.

 

1)Mechanical chaos is frustrating.

5)Good gameplay is better than whatever your ideas or whatever the player's expectations are.

Kinda impossible to avoid all of this....even in PnP RPG, players come up with exploitation... The different thing is that, even when the designers recognized an exploitation, it takes much more resources and time to apply the issue compared with a game master.

 

2)What you can perceive is the most important thing.

I think "feedbacks" of the choices the players made should be noticeable to them...when the core game is mainly about management and its abstract numbers, the players only look at numbers but, about video games, especially recent visually enhanced video games, the numbers are too subtle for most of the players. So, the designers need to go for more obvious ways to form the experience of the players.

 

AP surprised me that how designers didn't analyze modern FPS or Vampire: the Bloodline Masquerade. I see clearly why RPG designers are blinded since it took me to understand what's wrong with the game-plays. Actually, it may be enough to watch how FPS players are playing. It was a shock when I noticed most of them don't read manuals and start the game straight away. So, the designers need to do a good job in tutorial. Although I don't play many FPS, when I do play, I notice the designers are doing pretty good job about this. A recent blander around tutorial was done in the Witcher 2 by CDProjekt Red but, reading the update for patch 2.0, they addressed this issue...it is nice that this is done before the release of the console version.

 

3)Strategic failures are the biggest disappointing failures for players.

Some people who played Lionheart complained of this issue. The strongest is a melee fighter and it's the right decision, of which I don't even bother to put spoiler tag since it is the information which should be given to the players if the designers didn't make the builds equally. Slightly minor but the same thing can be said to Madae in Icewind Dale II...the players are not informed that she is invincible and it's a common tactics to go for healer/magic user in D&D. The players won't feel fair when the designers didn't signal them beforehand or given "wrong" choices.

 

In my talk, I didn't advocate completely eliminating randomization, but I did advocate eliminating extreme randomization and randomization that allows for "uncontested" re-rolls via reload. E.g.: lockpicking, speech checks, crafting checks, etc. A good combat example would be the "Old School" Disintegrate spell. Make the save or you're annihilated. It's an all-or-nothing spell. People used it to great degenerate gameplay lengths in old Infinity Engine games to kill powerful enemies on the first round of combat. If the creature made the save, they'd just reload. It's all-or-nothing mechanical chaos. Newer versions of Disintegrate simply do a lot of damage on a failed save, with less damage on a successful save. Still potent, but not live-or-die, and less likely to encourage save scumming in a CRPG environment.

Hmmm...Sawyer seems to be mainly talking of randomization in mini games, here, probably because he has been developing such type of RPG, where the players go through stories, solving mini-games - mainly combat. However, there are games which are based on different philosophy - sandbox games, which give the players simulated world/stages - some RPGs even focuses on this. This type of games don't share most of the problems mentioned here. I'll make a list from my limited experience...otherwise, the list should be much longer.

 

Mission-based sandbox Thief series/Dishonored

Area-based sandbox System (Bio) Shock series/Deus Ex series

Open-world sandbox The Elder Scroll series/Fallout series/S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series

 

Oddly, Avellone seems to have love with one of these games since he mentions Ultima Underworld and System Shock 2 in a quite passionate manner in various interviews although it is almost suicidal desire since, as he himself admits most often with his favorite dwarf example, the best moment of the games come from pure simulation rather than any forethought factor by the designers. He sounds like Harvey Smith here, tough.

 

Sawyer has his own love to simulationist RPG such as Wasteland although it seems more of stat-based simulation. Also, we briefly discussed randomization in stealth game-play while back but I wonder what you are thinking of this aspect of randomization - randomization in games where the designers throw the players in simulated environments.

 

In any case, the presentation sounds more of revision for designers who have similar background with some of Obsidian members (Kinda how to play as a game master with the new rule set we have in front of us) rather than what kind of take would be possible for RPG in the current/upcoming tendency of the industry.

[Lady Evenstar]

For me the issue with Icewind Dale isn't being tuned for folks familiar with D&D. It's things like offering club as a weapon skill and then offering this assortment of clubs http://mikesrpgcenter.com/icewind/weapons/clubs.html

 

I also think that RPG combat is as tricky to design as it is, because the genre has traditionally appealed to players with a different skillset than FPS players have and unless your choice is to write off old fanbases in hope of attracting new audiences, you need to design combat that will feel good both to players who enjoy twitch mechanics and players who don't (either because they just don't find them fun or because they have slower reflexes). Everyone wants games that they play to reward the skills they bring to those games. The trick is making both groups feel rewarded (and not overly penalized for lacking the skills prized by the other group)--and I don't see adopting solutions that work in FPSs necessarily accomplishing that.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Lady Evenstar

[J.E. Sawyer]

For me the issue with Icewind Dale isn't being tuned for folks familiar with D&D. It's things like offering club as a weapon skill and then offering this assortment of clubs http://mikesrpgcenter.com/icewind/weapons/clubs.html

The inverse happened in IWD2: needing to provide magical versions of every weapon at every level of power due to 2nd Ed. AD&Ds/3Es excessively narrow weapon specialization rules. The result: people complaining that there are tons of magical weapons in every dungeon and every store. Here's an even better idea: don't force specialization to narrow a player's choices to literally 1/30th of all of the available weapon types. That way the designers won't have to create three+ magical versions of every weapon and players can specialize with greater confidence that they'll find appropriate equipment.

 

Also, yes a larger problem with IWD was that it was tuned for people familiar with AD&D. I was there for the entire QA process. There were fights that Kihan Pak and I breezed through on the first try that infuriated and completely blocked testers. Let me repeat that: there were professional game testers whose job it was to play AD&D CRPGs who were completely blocked by fights in the original IWD, unable to proceed. In contrast, other testers and some developers (notably Kihan and I) had little to no difficulty with these same encounters.

 

I also think that RPG combat is as tricky to design as it is, because the genre has traditionally appealed to players with a different skillset than FPS players have

I think this is an odd assumption. I think people play RPGs because they enjoy RPG gameplay, not because they tried to play an FPS or an action game, failed or didn't like it, shrugged their shoulders, and decided to "settle" for RPGs. RPG players may or may not also like/be good at FPSs, action games, or a variety of other genres/gameplay types.

 

I don't see adopting solutions that work in FPSs necessarily accomplishing that.

This is too general a critique. In my talk, I gave specific examples, like the shooting mechanics in Deus Ex vs. the shooting mechanics in Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Given a choice between the shooting mechanics in the original and the shooting mechanics in the new game, I doubt many players -- RPG, FPS, RTS -- would choose the former -- because it feels terrible. If you're going to ask players to aim the reticule themselves, you should probably make it feel GOOD. Are there people out there who prefer the shooting mechanics in ME1 to ME2? Really? Because in ME2, they basically just made the shooting feel more like a "regular" FPS.

[C2B]

For me the issue with Icewind Dale isn't being tuned for folks familiar with D&D. It's things like offering club as a weapon skill and then offering this assortment of clubs http://mikesrpgcenter.com/icewind/weapons/clubs.html

 

I also think that RPG combat is as tricky to design as it is, because the genre has traditionally appealed to players with a different skillset than FPS players have and unless your choice is to write off old fanbases in hope of attracting new audiences, you need to design combat that will feel good both to players who enjoy twitch mechanics and players who don't (either because they just don't find them fun or because they have slower reflexes). Everyone wants games that they play to reward the skills they bring to those games. The trick is making both groups feel rewarded (and not overly penalized for lacking the skills prized by the other group)--and I don't see adopting solutions that work in FPSs necessarily accomplishing that.

 

You can never satisify everyone is a life lesson that applies to gaming too.

Rather than trying to appeal to everyone developers should work on new systems that either focus on one of the two exclusivly or try to combine them in a manner where both (charachter and player based) work side by side rather than get in each others way. (AP example)

Edited August 19, 2011 by C2B

[Lady Evenstar]

I think you missed the key "for me" at the start of my post. Out of curiosity did you significantly retune IWD based on the QA testers' experience or is the game they played essentially the game I've played?

 

My thoughts on combat are similarly rooted in personal experience (as well as comments that I've read over the years). Indeed, in your talk you say that tuning IWD for folks familiar with D&D (i.e. rewarding those with that skillset at the expense of other players) resulted in a game that was frustrating for some. It's only the reverse that you deny as being a valid issue. And as someone who has been playing CRPGs since the early 90s, and who now has the sorts of reflexes you might expect in a woman over 60, I can say that introducing twitch mechanics into RPGs can definitely make a game less fun for some players. I understand that I'm no longer part of your target audience and am actually OK with that. That doesn't make catering to different skillsets any less problematic for developers who continue to want to make games that can be enjoyed by old fans, even those lacking in the twitch department.

 

It took me about 20 minutes of ME 1 to decide that cover shooters were not for me, so I've no opinions about that series.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Lady Evenstar

[C2B]

Nothing

Edited August 19, 2011 by C2B

[J.E. Sawyer]

And as someone who has been playing CRPGs since the early 90s, and who now has the sorts of reflexes you might expect in a woman over 60, I can say that introducing twitch mechanics into RPGs can definitely make a game less fun for some players.

I am going to address this specifically. I brought this up in my talk as a specific caveat: I am not advocating turning all RPGs into ones that feature real-time core mechanics.

 

Let me restate what I wrote earlier in this thread: if a developer is going to make a game with real-time first person shooting mechanics and is going to ask the player to manually aim at their targets, the developer should make that mechanic feel good. Inflated spread doesn't actually make the game easier for anyone; it makes it harder for everyone. Similarly, if a developer is going to make a game with real-time direct-control melee combat, the developer should make that mechanic feel good. Going "halfsies" ? la Morrowind doesn't make the game easier for anyone. You're still manually moving around the target and manually swinging the sword. The difference is that when you hit -- maybe you actually don't!

 

If you're going to make games like the Gold Box series, IE games, or ToEE, make the visual/audio/text combat feedback clear (which really is the player's window into what's going on for such games) and avoid the pointless reload-fodder of all-or-nothing events like the olde tyme Disintegrate spell I cited earlier.

 

Honestly, though, I don't think many publishers are interested in funding those sorts of games unless they are free-to-play/browser or mobile games. If a publisher wanted us to make one, I'd have no problem doing it. I'd still make the sort of strategic gameplay and mechanical chaos revisions I suggested.

[Wombat]

My thoughts on combat are similarly rooted in personal experience (as well as comments that I've read over the years). Indeed, in your talk you say that tuning IWD for folks familiar with D&D (i.e. rewarding those with that skillset at the expense of other players) resulted in a game that was frustrating for some. It's only the reverse that you deny as being a valid issue. And as someone who has been playing CRPGs since the early 90s, and who now has the sorts of reflexes you might expect in a woman over 60, I can say that introducing twitch mechanics into RPGs can definitely make a game less fun for some players. I understand that I'm no longer part of your target audience and am actually OK with that. That doesn't make catering to different skillsets any less problematic for developers who continue to want to make games that can be enjoyed by old fans, even those lacking in the twitch department.

One of the reasons why I stopped playing Bioware seems to be that what I liked about their game is the game-play. Without it, I have no reason to play their games any more. If the fan-base is rooted in a specific game-play, it's the end of the story for such fans. However, as a person who has enjoyed 80's PnP RPGs, role-playing game is much more than that. In those days, they made some tabletop RPGs with interesting settings and rule-sets optimized for such settings, for example. Giving the world and letting the players implement things are something which can connect these games and modern ones which I listed in my previous post.

 

It took me about 20 minutes of ME 1 to decide that cover shooters were not for me, so I've no opinions about that series.

The same thing happened to me with Dungeon Siege III. I may turn out to be not bad at the game play but there are game-plays which keep me indifferent.

 

Let me restate what I wrote earlier in this thread: if a developer is going to make a game with real-time first person shooting mechanics and is going to ask the player to manually aim at their targets, the developer should make that mechanic feel good. Inflated spread doesn't actually make the game easier for anyone; it makes it harder for everyone. Similarly, if a developer is going to make a game with real-time direct-control melee combat, the developer should make that mechanic feel good. Going "halfsies" ? la Morrowind doesn't make the game easier for anyone. You're still manually moving around the target and manually swinging the sword. The difference is that when you hit -- maybe you actually don't!

Yea, it's just "horses for courses." Games which frustrate me most are the ones which don't have unified design philosophy...this is same, whether they are PnP rulesets or video games.

[Giantevilhead]

I guess the real problem is that technology has not yet caught up to imagination yet.

 

An attack roll that fails to beat an enemy's AC does not necessarily mean that the attack misses. Most GM's are not going to just say "you swing your sword and you missed" every time you fail an attack roll. Instead, they'll describe how you missed or how the enemy deflected your blow with their shield or how your blade only scratched the dragon's scale.

 

Computer games don't do that. They don't telegraph every miss in a meaningful way. If they did, players would probably be much more willing to accept those random elements in an FPS game.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Giantevilhead

[C2B]

I guess the real problem is that technology has not yet caught up to imagination yet.

 

An attack roll that fails to beat an enemy's AC does not necessarily mean that the attack misses. Most GM's are not going to just say "you swing your sword and you missed" every time you fail an attack roll. Instead, they'll describe how you missed or how the enemy deflected your blow with their shield or how your blade only scratched the dragon's scale.

 

Computer games don't do that. They don't telegraph every miss in a meaningful way. If they did, players would probably be much more willing to accept those random elements in an FPS game.

 

?

 

Thats probably less of a technology issue than a too much work issue.

Edited August 20, 2011 by C2B

[Giantevilhead]

I guess the real problem is that technology has not yet caught up to imagination yet.

 

An attack roll that fails to beat an enemy's AC does not necessarily mean that the attack misses. Most GM's are not going to just say "you swing your sword and you missed" every time you fail an attack roll. Instead, they'll describe how you missed or how the enemy deflected your blow with their shield or how your blade only scratched the dragon's scale.

 

Computer games don't do that. They don't telegraph every miss in a meaningful way. If they did, players would probably be much more willing to accept those random elements in an FPS game.

 

?

 

Thats probably less of a technology issue than a too much work issue.

 

I suppose, it would require a lot more different animations for everything. Plus it would be hard to sync everything up so that it looks good. If an enemy is already performing an action when you attack and miss, you don't want the animation to go directly from one to the other, there has to be a smooth transition.

[Giantevilhead]

Although, you could also telegraph misses audibly. You could have certain sound effects to indicate a missed or deflected shot or have the enemy taught you on your poor marksmanship or how your sword has no chance of getting through their plate armor.

[thesisko]

Honestly, though, I don't think many publishers are interested in funding those sorts of games unless they are free-to-play/browser or mobile games. If a publisher wanted us to make one, I'd have no problem doing it. I'd still make the sort of strategic gameplay and mechanical chaos revisions I suggested.

Why is that? Paradox publishes a lot of niche titles without going free-to-play or mobile. You seem to believe that focus on tactical combat in an RPG is something gamers would begrudgingly accept only if it was a free/mobile game. Or is that what most publishers believe because "RPG" has become synonymous with cinematic "choose-your-adventure"?

Edited August 21, 2011 by thesisko

[Flouride]

Honestly, though, I don't think many publishers are interested in funding those sorts of games unless they are free-to-play/browser or mobile games. If a publisher wanted us to make one, I'd have no problem doing it. I'd still make the sort of strategic gameplay and mechanical chaos revisions I suggested.

Why is that? Paradox publishes a lot of niche titles without going free-to-play or mobile. You seem to believe that focus on tactical combat in an RPG is something gamers would begrudgingly accept only if it was a free/mobile game. Or is that what most publishers believe because "RPG" has become synonymous with cinematic "choose-your-adventure"?

 

I would go as far as saying, Paradox only releases niche titles. You guys should talk to the Swedes and fill this "niche hole" in the market.

[thesisko]

And I've never seen a F2P or mobile game that is anything like the IE games or ToEE. I'd think a publisher who is interested in a F2P/mobile game would ask for something casual/social that could be monetized with in-game purchases.

[thesisko]

Also, such a game would drown in a sea of similar-looking browser games whereas a reasonably priced and marketed downloadable title would be a fairly unique offering. I highly doubt that "IWD3 the Facebook-game" would be more profitable than IWD3 for $20 on Steam.

But instead we get atrocious offerings such as "D&D Daggerdale".

Edited August 21, 2011 by thesisko

[Giantevilhead]

Turn based strategy games seem to be doing OK. Civilization 5 was quite successful. Heroes 6 and Sword of the Stars 2 are coming out soon.

 

I'm sure that there's some publisher out there who would be willing to do a turn based RPG.

[thesisko]

Turn based strategy games seem to be doing OK. Civilization 5 was quite successful. Heroes 6 and Sword of the Stars 2 are coming out soon.

 

I'm sure that there's some publisher out there who would be willing to do a turn based RPG.

 

I think the problem is that RPG's are expected to sell on cinematics and story instead of gameplay. Maybe it would be easier to pitch a IWD-type game as "squad based strategy with RPG elements"

[Giantevilhead]

Turn based strategy games seem to be doing OK. Civilization 5 was quite successful. Heroes 6 and Sword of the Stars 2 are coming out soon.

 

I'm sure that there's some publisher out there who would be willing to do a turn based RPG.

 

I think the problem is that RPG's are expected to sell on cinematics and story instead of gameplay. Maybe it would be easier to pitch a IWD-type game as "squad based strategy with RPG elements"

 

Giving players the ability to create their modules is a good option. Challenge modes/arenas/dungeons could work too.

[C2B]

Saw this on Sawyers twitter

 

http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014932/The-E...f-RPG-Mechanics

Edited September 8, 2011 by C2B

[Lexx]

Nice. Now we just need all his explanation text. :>

 

I really wish there would be a video around.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Also, such a game would drown in a sea of similar-looking browser games whereas a reasonably priced and marketed downloadable title would be a fairly unique offering. I highly doubt that "IWD3 the Facebook-game" would be more profitable than IWD3 for $20 on Steam.

But instead we get atrocious offerings such as "D&D Daggerdale".

IWD on an iPad would be awesome.

 

I've been paying a real-time party-based "RPG" on my iPhone called Battleheart. No role-playing whatsoever, but the mechanics feel like a cross between an entirely real-time IE game and Tower Defense.

 

 

EDIT: There is a video on the GDC vault, but it is premium content.

[Wombat]

2D illustration and comically-drawn characters... Is it wise to raise expectations? Won't it choke yourself in the end or...well, you need to stay confidential, anyway.

[J.E. Sawyer]

If we are to conflate illustration style with game quality (why?), 2D illustration and comically-drawn characters should be indicative of an excellent game.