Sawyerism Distilled - an interview with Josh Sawyer at Iron Tower Studio

Although I'm exctied about the content of the interview, I don't really understand the improvement of using the dual bar approach either:

Using this with a ratio of 4:1 and 20 hitpoints, I'll be dead after taking 100 points of damage.

Using only health as a ressource and having 100 hitpoints, I'll also be dead after taking 100 points of damage.

As long as I have positive stamina during the fight, the systems accomplish exactly the same, so the only difference is when running out of stamina, which makes you unconscious when I recall correctly, but we don't know anything more about how that works.

So as long as I keep my stamina postive, nothing seems to change apart from some number scaling, while losing stamina introduces new effects.

 

At least, thats not how I understand a buffer to work. Stamina would be some kind of buffer if you only got healthdamage after losing a certain threshold of stamina, as that would seperate short term ressources from long term ressources - but this way, you always lose longterm ressources anyway, even if you manage to organize your short term ressources. I don't really see the point.

 

There really are no regenerating health ressources this way between fights. In fact, thats just as vancian magic works:

You use up your ressources and then there is no way to refill them apart from resting.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Doppelschwert

I thought this was an "old school CRPG"? So, why are we stepping away from skill and attribute checks in dialogues and instead are making it "E for Everybody"?

 

The most famous IE titles, the ones that most backers have been very vocal about wanting to see followed in spirit with PE (Baldur's Gate 1&2) had very little in the way of skill checks in dialogue, and had very rudimentary reputation mechanics.

 

BTW, I'm not a fan of Sawyer's proposed solutions. If a solution isn't better than the original mechanic, then I don't see the point of it, and I think Project Eternity overall would benefit from having at least attribute checks/unlocked options with dialogue, rather than reputation-based options and dialogue puzzles.

Not having skills for speech doesn't necessarily rule out skills and attributes contributing to dialogue.

At least, thats not how I understand a buffer to work. Stamina would be some kind of buffer if you only got healthdamage after losing a certain threshold of stamina, as that would seperate short term ressources from long term ressources - but this way, you always lose longterm ressources anyway, even if you manage to organize your short term ressources. I don't really see the point.

 

Players will be "knocked out" for the duration of the battle once they reach 0 stamina, that's the important part. It's not meant to serve as a buffer for health but rather a stat which gives health a tactical significance during individual battles.

BTW, I'm not a fan of Sawyer's proposed solutions. If a solution isn't better than the original mechanic, then I don't see the point of it, and I think Project Eternity overall would benefit from having at least attribute checks/unlocked options with dialogue, rather than reputation-based options and dialogue puzzles.

Speech as a skill is the thing that I think produces the most quasi-/metagaming. Attribute/ability score checks tend to not produce the same problem since you can often be more egalitarian about what attributes are checked and how often. With a Speech skill (or equivalent), its whole raison d'être is to gain advantage in conversation. That's not true even for stats like Charisma or Intelligence in D&D.

My biggest problem with "Speech" skills is that they don't really make sense. How does one learn to be persuasive or intimidating? Using attributes in conversation always made more sense to me.

 

I'm also happy about the Health/Stamina split, if for no other reason than it reminds me of Megaversal.

 

I also appreciate that mages in PE will not be protected by multiple layers of protection that need to be striped in a specific order or else the mage is invincible and wipes out the entire party. not only did it all but require you to take a mage, it was extremely boring and got old fast.

Edited December 7, 2012 by KaineParker

Just hurry up and come out with beta already...

I like all the things Sawyer says individually,but his whole approach feels too...gamey, i don't know...overly balanced. While this can be a good thing,it can also make the game feel souless and artificial. Hopefully Obsidian's excelent writing can offset this

 

Initially I sort of agreed / saw your point. Then, thinking about it, I changed my mind a bit. The guy is a games designer. Of course he's seeing things differently. A cabinet-maker views cabinets in a different way from me, too. A butcher looks at a side of meat mechanically while I'm just thinking of what sauce to make to go with it.

 

He's being candid, which can't be bad, it's interesting to see the process explained. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says but I certainly understand why he says it.

Speech as a skill is the thing that I think produces the most quasi-/metagaming. Attribute/ability score checks tend to not produce the same problem since you can often be more egalitarian about what attributes are checked and how often. With a Speech skill (or equivalent), its whole raison d'être is to gain advantage in conversation. That's not true even for stats like Charisma or Intelligence in D&D.

 

Fair enough, and maybe seeing the approach in-game will convert me. I'm not sure if I understand the reputation approach though. It seems to me like a more convoluted application of The Witcher 2's dialogue abilities system *, and makes even less sense: why does a reputation as a diplomat help me solve situation diplomatically? If anything, I'd expect people to scrutinize me more.

 

* In The Witcher 2, dialogue abilities are learn-by-use. The first time you could use a dialogue ability, it was a randomized, relatively easy check. Most likely you'd succeed (but sometimes you wouldn't, which was kind of frustrating and needlessly arbitrary), after which just hitting the dialogue option when it became available would be enough to raise your abilities to the point where you'd never ever fail anymore. It's basically like just having the options always available, but with an arbitrary number attached and some failing you can't actually present. Terrible design, IMO.

Speech as a skill is the thing that I think produces the most quasi-/metagaming. Attribute/ability score checks tend to not produce the same problem since you can often be more egalitarian about what attributes are checked and how often. With a Speech skill (or equivalent), its whole raison d'être is to gain advantage in conversation. That's not true even for stats like Charisma or Intelligence in D&D.

 

Fair enough, and maybe seeing the approach in-game will convert me. I'm not sure if I understand the reputation approach though. It seems to me like a more convoluted application of The Witcher 2's dialogue abilities system *, and makes even less sense: why does a reputation as a diplomat help me solve situation diplomatically? If anything, I'd expect people to scrutinize me more.

Who's to say that won't happen?

 

I vaguely recall some Alpha Protocol characters being on guard against "charming" lines if you relied heavily on "suave" options in the past.

Stamina would be some kind of buffer if you only got healthdamage after losing a certain threshold of stamina, as that would seperate short term ressources from long term ressources - but this way, you always lose longterm ressources anyway, even if you manage to organize your short term ressources. I don't really see the point.

 

 

That's actually kind of a good point. I'd be happy to see that you'll start losing Health after your Stamina dropped under (say) 80%. Especially since you'll (presumably) have all kinds of neat stamina-restoring powers in combat, thus Health damage can stack up pretty fast.

I think I prefer dialogue skills over attributes, mainly because it reflects player choice better.

 

If I raise my intimidation skill, I expressly do so to become more intimidating (durr). If I raise my strength, I mostly do so to deal more damage, not for talking. If I'm given the choice to use my fighter's strength for intimidation purposes, I'll be like "thanks, I didn't intend that but it's still nice". It's more like icing on the cake rather than strategy.

 

Also you'll usually get more skill points over the course of a game than attribute points, so you can differentiate better according to your preferences. Raise intimidation by 3 at this level, or also put 1 into smithing and 1 into alchemy?

 

Then again, this is better done in a single player game. In a 6 man party, all your dialogue skills are going to be piled up on one or two characters, which is always bad. So I'm mostly neutral.

Who's to say that won't happen?

 

I vaguely recall some Alpha Protocol characters being on guard against "charming" lines if you relied heavily on "suave" options in the past.

 

I can only go from what Saywer says: " I think it's more interesting to allow a person to select diplomatic responses and develop a reputation for being a diplomat than to level up a Diplomacy skill and pick the Diplomacy option when it's unlocked for you." Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but he puts the situation on the same level, meaning that developing a reputation as a diplomat will have roughly the same benefits as leveling up a diplomacy dialogue skill.

Speech as a skill is the thing that I think produces the most quasi-/metagaming. Attribute/ability score checks tend to not produce the same problem since you can often be more egalitarian about what attributes are checked and how often. With a Speech skill (or equivalent), its whole raison d'être is to gain advantage in conversation. That's not true even for stats like Charisma or Intelligence in D&D.

 

Fair enough, and maybe seeing the approach in-game will convert me. I'm not sure if I understand the reputation approach though. It seems to me like a more convoluted application of The Witcher 2's dialogue abilities system *, and makes even less sense: why does a reputation as a diplomat help me solve situation diplomatically? If anything, I'd expect people to scrutinize me more.

 

 

If you are known to be reasonable person who wants to find solutions that work for every one it often gives you some authority in negotions and people more easier start negotiations with you. Of course some people will see you as compromising person who will not drive their intrests or you are weak because of that or etc.. So as always certain reputation has it strong points and weaknesess.

 

In my opinion it is more intriguing approach that you never can please every faction, but need too tradeoff depending on which type character you play, contrast to approach where you can win every one on your side by winning all conversation puzzles (via instant win options or other means).

Speech as a skill is the thing that I think produces the most quasi-/metagaming. Attribute/ability score checks tend to not produce the same problem since you can often be more egalitarian about what attributes are checked and how often. With a Speech skill (or equivalent), its whole raison d'être is to gain advantage in conversation. That's not true even for stats like Charisma or Intelligence in D&D.

 

Fair enough, and maybe seeing the approach in-game will convert me. I'm not sure if I understand the reputation approach though. It seems to me like a more convoluted application of The Witcher 2's dialogue abilities system *, and makes even less sense: why does a reputation as a diplomat help me solve situation diplomatically? If anything, I'd expect people to scrutinize me more.

 

* In The Witcher 2, dialogue abilities are learn-by-use. The first time you could use a dialogue ability, it was a randomized, relatively easy check. Most likely you'd succeed (but sometimes you wouldn't, which was kind of frustrating and needlessly arbitrary), after which just hitting the dialogue option when it became available would be enough to raise your abilities to the point where you'd never ever fail anymore. It's basically like just having the options always available, but with an arbitrary number attached and some failing you can't actually present. Terrible design, IMO.

 

Hmm, you're trying to think about it as some kind of general-purpose mechanic. It won't be - it will be 100% scripted, as in Alpha Protocol.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Infinitron

BTW, I'm not a fan of Sawyer's proposed solutions. If a solution isn't better than the original mechanic, then I don't see the point of it, and I think Project Eternity overall would benefit from having at least attribute checks/unlocked options with dialogue, rather than reputation-based options and dialogue puzzles.

Speech as a skill is the thing that I think produces the most quasi-/metagaming. Attribute/ability score checks tend to not produce the same problem since you can often be more egalitarian about what attributes are checked and how often. With a Speech skill (or equivalent), its whole raison d'être is to gain advantage in conversation. That's not true even for stats like Charisma or Intelligence in D&D.

 

But then isn't that just switching speech skill to charisma stat, with the same effect? If I have a character that has a high charisma, then I would assume that he knows what to say in what situation, therefore picking the [CHA] option would always net the best results possible for that character, regardless of whether it's being intimidating, diplomatic, submissive or whatever else you can think of.

But then isn't that just switching speech skill to charisma stat, with the same effect? If I have a character that has a high charisma, then I would assume that he knows what to say in what situation, therefore picking the [CHA] option would always net the best results possible for that character, regardless of whether it's being intimidating, diplomatic, submissive or whatever else you can think of.

 

Only if CHA is the only stat check you ever make in conversation. Which would be silly. INT and WIS are at least as relevant, as are various knowlege-based skills, reputation, and experience.

Yeah, but those would be overridden in a person with a high charisma. It might not be a good idea to say something observant or intelligent, so picking options that would lose brownie points with someone would be indicative of low charisma*. Conversely if the [iNT] or [WIS] answer is the "right" one that just means that it's a charismatic character who is also smart/wise. A high charisma character would know not to use the options for which he doesn't have the requirements and therefore the [CHA] response would be the only option. I guess the effectiveness can be limited by the other stats as you say, but as I sad the [CHA] answer is still the best possible for that character.

 

What I'm trying to say is that you cannot role-play a character whose mental stats are not an approximation of the players without metagaming.

 

* assuming it's not working like in PS:T where a stat check answer was always better than a standard one.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Sabotin

I like the speech system laid out in the interview, once I understood that attributes still influence what options you get as it means that the type of character you are is reflected in the dialogue. I find Speech skills to actually limit character choice and imposes a very artificial, 'gamey' mechanic that often has very real relation to who he is. I despised the speech skill in DAO as it had no bearing on who your character was or what his stats were, just an automatic 'I win' button. As the discussion in another thread about speech tags showed, people also cannot agree where certain speech skills end and others begin, why can't you use bluff to intimidate for instance. And finally, speech skills usually can only be used by the party leaders, meaning that the PC has to be a Talker type.

 

As for the stamina mechanic: love it! As someone who normally hates backtracking I think it opens up new possibilities for gameplay. Delving into dungeons could become more like proper forays and expeditions, coming back up for supplies and rest before diving back down again. And most importantly, it could make inns and taverns relevant again! In the IE games resting at an inn was useful for low levels but it wasn't long before the bonus for sleeping them became meaningless as the characters hit points became larger and healing spells became available. Would like to see inns become inportant again as it is a staple of fantasy roleplaying.

There sould be no indicators that you use a stat. Just dialog choices. That some of them are available because you had the right combination of stats/knowlege/reputation its not something the player should know about. Its more natural and makes you follow the dialog without metagaming it. Also it helps with replayability if you make a diffirent character and have completelly diffirent dialog choices

Edited December 7, 2012 by Malekith

There sould be no indicators that you use a stat. Just dialog choices. That some of them are available because you had the right combination of stats/knowlege/reputation its not something the player should know about. Its more natural and makes you follow the dialog without metagaming it. Also it helps with replayability if you make a diffirent character and have completelly diffirent dialog choices

 

I think Josh has said that he doesn't like doing it that way, because then people don't even realize that they have different options.

There sould be no indicators that you use a stat. Just dialog choices. That some of them are available because you had the right combination of stats/knowlege/reputation its not something the player should know about. Its more natural and makes you follow the dialog without metagaming it. Also it helps with replayability if you make a diffirent character and have completelly diffirent dialog choices

 

This is actually a good portion of a solution assuming that someone hasn't already metagamed the hell out of that particular conversation. I know seeing that little [iNT] or (Intimidate) for me is so obvious to the point that I don't even bother reading the other options. Ideally the "charismatic" or other options would be added without knowledge that they have been. So basically once [skill or stat] hits a certain level it adds new dialogue options but with no tag or collor change or any other indicator. It's just another option.

 

The most blatantly obvious argument against Skill > Stat is simple. When is the last time you "practiced" your intimidation? Furthermore how does one exactly get better at intimidating? On the other side of the coin...would you not find an individual who can bench press 300lbs at least a LITTLE more intimidating than a scrawny stick figure, particularly upon initial encounter? Similar examples can be provided for each skill/stat combination.

I think I remembered the other location in Arcanum that does this well. It was the part with St. Mannox. A lot of the quests and ways in which you could complete that whole Pana'ari deal had to do with what you knew/know from dialog and the places you had been throughout your adventures. You would get different dialog choices based on that.

 

Which brings me to another point: I would like it if the dialogue options that you have are also triggered more based on the locations you've been the and the things you've done up until the point of that conversation. So for example, of all the 10 or so "optional" locations/quests you've been, many of these locations have dialogue choices that get unlocked for certain dialogues. You can't ever have all the dialogue choices unlocked because the places you've been (and the order in which you go to these places) will change. It's sort of like a Jaquayian dialogue. There are many paths to the destinations, and these paths are non-linear and can be highly convoluted.

 

This allows for less meta-gaming, because the dialogue trees are too complex and convoluted to follow a single linear path for the most "optimal choice." At the same time, this also requires a less "linear" story-line, sort of like in BG2 where you could go to several different locations to gather up the 20K gold. If you are going from dungeon to dungeon without being able to change up the orders, then this sort of dialogue path wouldn't work.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Hormalakh

At least, thats not how I understand a buffer to work. Stamina would be some kind of buffer if you only got healthdamage after losing a certain threshold of stamina, as that would seperate short term ressources from long term ressources - but this way, you always lose longterm ressources anyway, even if you manage to organize your short term ressources. I don't really see the point.

 

Players will be "knocked out" for the duration of the battle once they reach 0 stamina, that's the important part. It's not meant to serve as a buffer for health but rather a stat which gives health a tactical significance during individual battles.

 

Well, I'm ok with this system, I just try to figure out what the motivation behind it is. At the moment it all boils down to the following:

Stamina is exactly the same concept as hitpoints are in the IE games:

- You take damage when being hit

- You can restore it through various means, including magical means

So whats actual new is the health part, not the stamina part, as stamina is simply another name for a concept we all know.

And if you really can't heal healthdamage, this is basically just a mechanism created to force you to rest, as it serves no other purpose than counting down toward 0 where you'll die while taking further damage.

 

So basically, right now that sounds like the new system has everything the old one had *plus* an additional rest enforcing mechanism every couple of fights *and* an additional regeneration between fights (which has not been in the IE games) as stamina is supposed to heal fast inbetween fights. Of course, these systems may interact with other systems, yadda yadda, and so on, but this is what it basically boils down to at the moment.

 

So on the one hand, we don't need to heal between fights in the traditional sense (which reduces a reason to restspam), but on the other hand, we're enforced to rest every couple of fights (which was avoidable if you used potions in the old IE games). I think those are the things josh wants to accomplish with this system and that is reasonable, but I'm still not sure if I like it that way.

 

What I want to say is that I don't see where it becomes more tactical than it used to be, it just creates a more reasonable mechanic which doesn't promote restspamming in the way the IE games did.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Doppelschwert

It could be more tactical in the sense that you actually try to limit your health damages as much as possible so as to limit resting. As infinitron stated it seems most logical to limit resting in some way, so that those who play "better" are rewarded for that by whatever means. It becomes a marker of how well you are fighting tactically over a range of several battles. It hasn't been much talked about, but perhaps there are ways that you can "weigh" more heavily on one of the two bars. There will be times where losing health wouldn't be of much concern (last battle before you trek it back) or where health would be more of a concern (low health on all party members, battle that is unavoidable, want to maximize your stealth losses, limit health losses). These become tactical decisions that you make before,during, and after battles.

 

I think that's more tactical, isn't it?

It's more tactical in that it wants you to focus more on accompilshing the mission/job/whatever, not exterminating the entire map, squishing every single bag of XP that pops up. Another previous comment makes it sound like there are going to be specific designated rest areas, so depending on how frequent they are, you may be heavily inclined to avoid combat as much as possible.