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

[Shevek]

Diplomacy is a skill. Intimidation is a skill. Haggling is a skill. These are things people learn to do better over time. I have to disagree with Sawyer that these should be removed. If anything, I would like it to be expanded upon. It would be neat if there was a separate interpersonal skill pool which dictated what options one would have in dialogue.

 

As part of defining their ROLE, players should decide what kind of character they are playing (gruff, reasonable, etc) and that should be tied to a stat (not just a rep counter). By removing the stat component, that is not helping to truly (in a numbers way) define your character. Sure, the choices are there, but that is not numerically changing your character. For example, one can make all kinds of choices in that Walking Dead game but its not tied at all to a stat or skill. Thats just fine and dandy for an Adventure title but this is a Role Playing Game. In a RPG, there are things you CAN do and things you CANT. In order to be a true RPG you need LIMITATIONS not just ABILITIES. What determines your limitations? Your skills and stats.

 

I would further stipulate, that the party should have similar development options and that the entire party should be able to contribute to convos. Again, those contributions should be tied to their stats and skills.

 

I will say having just one or two convo skills is bad since they become must haves. However, if there are half a dozen skills that share a "speech tree" pool of points, that would be better I think. Instead of just diplo, there should be streetwise, sense motive, ettiquette, haggling, bluff, intimidation, etc etc which determine how well you interact with assorted segments of the population in varied circumstances.

 

I also disagree that conversation should not be a right/wrong puzzle. Of course it is. When you want information, access, assistance, etc - one must convince, threaten, probe, sweet talk, etc to get these things. One should be able to succeed or fail in varying degrees. This is just like combat. Obviously, one succeeds (kill) or fails (be killed). Crafting, sneaking, and any other aspect of the game should work that way as well. There are winners and losers.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Shevek

[Hormalakh]

Diplomacy is a skill. Intimidation is a skill. Haggling is a skill. These are things people learn to do better over time. I have to disagree with Sawyer that these should be removed. If anything, I would like it to be expanded upon. It would be neat if there was a separate interpersonal skill pool which dictated what options one would have in dialogue.

 

As part of defining their ROLE, players should decide what kind of character they are playing (gruff, reasonable, etc) and that should be tied to a stat (not just a rep counter). By removing the stat component, that is not helping to truly (in a numbers way) define your character. Sure, the choices are there, but that is not numerically changing your character. For example, one can make all kinds of choices in that Walking Dead game but its not tied at all to a stat or skill. Thats just fine and dandy for an Adventure title but this is a Role Playing Game. In a RPG, there are things you CAN do and things you CANT. In order to be a true RPG you need LIMITATIONS not just ABILITIES. What determines your limitations? Your skills and stats.

 

I would further stipulate, that the party should have similar development options and that the entire party should be able to contribute to convos. Again, those contributions should be tied to their stats and skills.

 

I will say having just one or two convo skills is bad since they become must haves. However, if there are half a dozen skills that share a "speech tree" pool of points, that would be better I think. Instead of just diplo, there should be streetwise, sense motive, ettiquette, haggling, bluff, intimidation, etc etc which determine how well you interact with assorted segments of the population in varied circumstances.

 

Metalurgy is a skill.

Blacksmithing is a skill.

Riding a horse is a skill.

Tactical strategy in the field of battle is a skill.

Alchemy can be considered a skill.

Setting up a camp is a skill.

Being able to survive in the outdoors is a skill.

 

There are a bunch of different skills in these sorts of games. There is no reason they should all employ the same mechanic and sometimes we don't even consider some of them in our games (crafting/alchemy/setting up camp/outdoorsman (fallout did this, but not much of the other games). In fact, certain skills lend themselves more to being binary, some lend themselves more to being graded, and some help to expand on your character's personality. We don't have to use the same skill check mechanic on everything.

 

Different games are going to deal with different skills and base their mechanics on those skills differently. Unless you've played all the different mechanics, how can you be sure one way is better than another? I don't think this mechanic for dialogue has been ever fully explored yet. I agree with the game having limitations on characters, but playing a numbers game isn't the only way to limit dialogue mechanics. I've mentioned another one (basing some dialogue on the locations you've been and the quests you've accomplished) and other games have done this to great effect (Arcanum and apparently Darklands).

Edited December 7, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Shevek]

I disagree. Skill check mechanics should be used for everything possible (within reason). The more skill checks, the more the value of the character development. Every game has "choice" nowadays. Without limiting those choices, the player may "own" certain actions but his character does not.

 

Obsidian understands this which is why they are putting in "idiot" dialogue for stupid PCs. Why go half-ass on this? Put in real dialogue skills and advancement.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Shevek

[High Octane 881]

Lol well at least I think we're all in agreement that the dialogue needs to be deep.

[Hormalakh]

I disagree. Skill check mechanics should be used for everything possible (within reason). The more skill checks, the more the value of the character development. Every game has "choice" nowadays. Without limiting those choices, the player may "own" certain actions but his character does not.

 

Obsidian understands this which is why they are putting in "idiot" dialogue for stupid PCs. Why go half-ass on this? Put in real dialogue skills and advancement.

 

So then basically, what you're saying is that all gaming consequences should boil down to two things: what your character starts out as (the beginning stats, etc) and what you invest in during level-ups? What about everything in between? What about consequences mattering in what sort of quests you choose and how you complete them? You're saying that it shouldn't matter what you choose as a dialogue option, you only want the skill checks for dialogue to let you "win" the dialogue problem at hand.

 

Even idiot dialogue shouldn't just be a joke. If your idiot dialogue has actual consequences to what you choose to say, then it should matter in the long run.

 

And as I've said before, if you've ever played P&P RPGs you'd realize that whenever you would arrive at a problem, you would first have to come up with your own dialogue and then you'd roll a skill check, it wasn't the other way around, where if you won a skill check, then you could say a certain thing. You could say whatever, but the actual win/loss depended on what you rolled.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Shevek]

I disagree. Skill check mechanics should be used for everything possible (within reason). The more skill checks, the more the value of the character development. Every game has "choice" nowadays. Without limiting those choices, the player may "own" certain actions but his character does not.

 

Obsidian understands this which is why they are putting in "idiot" dialogue for stupid PCs. Why go half-ass on this? Put in real dialogue skills and advancement.

 

So then basically, what you're saying is that all gaming consequences should boil down to two things: what your character starts out as (the beginning stats, etc) and what you invest in during level-ups? What about everything in between? What about consequences mattering in what sort of quests you choose and how you complete them? You're saying that it shouldn't matter what you choose as a dialogue option, you only want the skill checks for dialogue to let you "win" the dialogue problem at hand.

 

Even idiot dialogue shouldn't just be a joke. If your idiot dialogue has actual consequences to what you choose to say, then it should matter in the long run.

 

OF COURSE, there should be choice. BUT that choice must be limited by the character development choices you have taken. This game will not be fully voiced. Can you imagine the possibility to make truly involved dialogue trees based on skills, faction rep, game choices, race, class, etc? You should ALWAYS have many choices but these should be constrained.

[Doppelschwert]

The Stamina/Health system is intended to accomplish a similar goal, but Health is still intended to be a resource that progressively dwindles down and encourages the player to rest. In PE, my belief is that this system will make that progression less chaotic and dependent on the presence of certain items/classes than it is in pre-4E D&D.

 

Thanks for the response! That is how I understood your intentions as well and imho, the proposed system is a good way to achieve this intention.

 

However, contrary to popular belief in this thread, I don't think this system opens up tactical decisions (and more importantly, I think it doesn't need to do this in the first place). Especially, I agree on the following:

 

How is that tactical at all? How do "better players" limit health damage? Do casual players stand around in their underwear while "better" players remember to put on their armor? What?

 

With a fixed ratio of stamina/health damage, resting depends on how much damage you receive (and how many abilities you want to refresh). But there is no tactical decision about how much damage you receive (none which is opened up from the mere existence of stamina / health, which is what this discussion is about) - that would be only the case if you could influence the ratio of stamina/health damage - but this does not seem to be the case. The tactical decision people are implying is whether you feel up to surviving the next battle or not - which is in a fact a tactical decision, but not the consequence of the dual system as it has been in every IE game before.

 

You can think about the system what you want but I have yet to see a convincing argument how this introduces tactical decisions based on what we know so far. Also, don't get me wrong; I feel like the system is a very good way to stop restspamming and I'm beginning to like it - however, I'd still have a problem with this if resting is limited to far apart places.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Doppelschwert

[Hormalakh]

OF COURSE, there should be choice. BUT that choice must be limited by the character development choices you have taken. This game will not be fully voiced. Can you imagine the possibility to make truly involved dialogue trees based on skills, faction rep, game choices, race, class, etc? You should ALWAYS have many choices but these should be constrained.

 

How has Sawyer said anything different?

 

I don't think it's correct to say that I want dialogue choices to be flavor only. I want the player's choices from node to node to actually be more mechanically significant that they have been in most RPGs. That consists of two parts: the immediate reaction within the conversation and the long-term effects of how that choice feeds into your reputation. Sometimes the short-term effects are minor, but the reputation system won't "forget" what you've done.

 

You just don't like the fact that he's using a different mechanic in this game to provide limitations and consequences. You don't need numbers - in fact, I would say you CAN'T use numbers - to determine something as complex as dialogue or "personality". You can use other mechanics and still make it interesting to play.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Hormalakh]

With a fixed ratio of stamina/health damage, resting depends on how much damage you receive (and how many abilities you want to refresh). But there is no tactical decision about how much damage you receive - that would be only the case if you could influence the ratio of stamina/health damage - but this does not seem to be the case. The tactical decision people are implying is whether you feel up to surviving the next battle or not - which is in a fact a tactical decision, but not the consequence of the dual system as it has been in every IE game before.

 

You can think about the system what you want but I have yet to see a convincing argument how this introduces tactical decisions based on what we know so far. Also, don't get me wrong; I feel like the system is a very good way to stop restspamming and I'm beginning to like it - however, I'd still have a problem with this if resting is limited to far apart places.

 

You're making assumptions based on things Sawyer never said.

 

t's actually already implemented and it works similarly to the classic MicroProse game Darklands. The major differences (IIRC) are that Darklands used armor to adjust the ratio of Endurance/Strength lost (i.e., heavier armor reduced the amount of Strength lost on a hit compared to Endurance) and that there were items to regain Strength, but they were rare/expensive.

I asked him specifically about whether PE would have ways of changing this ratio, and he didn't answer. I don't think he's ever implied that the ratio would stay static. Once again, look at my signature. As he says, the details can always be changed later if they don't play well.

[Shevek]

The mechanic is a reputation system. I LIKE reputation systems. However, they should not be the only mode of determining your speech choices. A rep system used in TANDEM with a skill system would be far more effective.

 

For example, lets say a game has 3 dialogue skills - sweet talk, mean talk and sly talk (for simplicity's sake). Lets use that in TANDEM with a rep system. There are 2 factions - A and B. So, you go and slaughter 2 groups of Faction A mercs. That gives you a bonus to your mean talk skill with them but the other two skills take a hit. Its easier to intimidate them but trying to reason with them is much harder now. Also, you have a bonus to all dialogue skill/choices in Faction B since they dislike Faction A. In this way, character development and game choice can both impact dialogue choice.

 

By just saying, ok, you have made these choices with this faction, therefore you have these dialogue choices - you are making the supposition that the character COULD use mean talk, sweet talk or sly talk if he was in good with said faction. Maybe Faction A LOVES you but you are a blithering idiot and should have no idea how to sweet talk them. Etc, etc, etc..

Edited December 7, 2012 by Shevek

[Hormalakh]

The mechanic is a reputation system. I LIKE reputation systems. However, they should not be the only mode of determining your speech choices. A rep system used in TANDEM with a skill system would be far more effective.

 

For example, lets say a game has 3 dialogue skills - sweet talk, mean talk and sly talk (for simplicity's sake). Lets use that in TANDEM with a rep system. There are 2 factions - A and B. So, you go and slaughter 2 groups of Faction A mercs. That gives you a bonus to your mean talk skill with them but the other two skills take a hit. Its easier to intimidate them but trying to reason with them is much harder now. Also, you have a bonus to all dialogue skill/choices in Faction B since they dislike Faction A. In this way, character development and game choice can both impact dialogue choice.

 

By just saying, ok, you have made these choices with this faction, therefore you have these dialogue choices - you are making the supposition that the character COULD use mean talk, sweet talk or sly talk if he was in good with said faction. Maybe Faction A LOVES you but you are a blithering idiot and should have no idea how to sweet talk them. Etc, etc, etc..

 

But based on skill upgrades you can only make those "additions" to your three dialogue skills during level ups. You would still be at XYZ for mean/sweet/sly after your actions just like you were XYZ before your actions. If you used skill upgrades, you can only change them during level-ups or at the beginning of character creation.

[Shevek]

Of course you are limited by level ups. Welcome to rpgs. Thats certainly better than crappy Bethesda like level up as you use systems. I had enough of those since they tried that with Final Fantasy II on the NES.

[Hormalakh]

Of course you are limited by level ups. Welcome to rpgs. Thats certainly better than crappy Bethesda like level up as you use systems. I had enough of those since they tried that with Final Fantasy II on the NES.

 

When it comes to dialogue I don't think it's fun to play that way. Like I said, not every aspect of the game needs to employ a singular game mechanic like "skill checks." PnP had to do that because it's tough as a DM to make rules and laws on the spot and be consistent. A computer RPG can be different and move away from those mechanics and still be consistent and rule-based.

 

Ultimately, I'd want to see how this plays out first before making such hasty decisions to say "this sucks, skill checks were better."

 

Although, I'd have to say that I'm not sure that Sawyer is moving completely away from development based dialogue. It seems like primary attributes (intelligence/charisma) are going to still play a role. It's hard for me to really "see" what he's describing when I haven't played it. But I do agree that having skills on dialogue isn't ABSOLUTELY necessary.

 

Edit: You know....skill checks aren't really classical RPG based either! They came out for 3.5e (not sure if 3e used them). Most of the IE games were 2e-based except for IWD2. Like Sawyer said, only IWD2 employed that mechanic. The only other isometric game that I can remember using skill-based checks was Fallout. It worked for that game; doesn't mean it'll work for every game.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Infinitron]

The greatest "dialogue game" of all time, Planescape Torment, did not use skill checks.

[Gfted1]

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.

 

But there is no tactical decision about how much damage you receive (none which is opened up from the mere existence of stamina / health, which is what this discussion is about) - that would be only the case if you could influence the ratio of stamina/health damage - but this does not seem to be the case. The tactical decision people are implying is whether you feel up to surviving the next battle or not - which is in a fact a tactical decision, but not the consequence of the dual system as it has been in every IE game before.

 

No, see above. Thats what I was responding to.

 

You can think about the system what you want but I have yet to see a convincing argument how this introduces tactical decisions based on what we know so far. Also, don't get me wrong; I feel like the system is a very good way to stop restspamming and I'm beginning to like it - however, I'd still have a problem with this if resting is limited to far apart places.

 

Im not sure I follow you. You are saying that deciding to push forward or not is tactical (1st paragraph) but what are you saying is not tactical (second paragraph)? Also, another great way to prevent rest spamming is to choose not to push the rest button.

 

Look, I know Im screwed here. There isnt going to be any difficulty level that adds a healer class, or healing spells, or potions, or resurrection, but at least a fellow can dream that there will be a "free rest" option that allows resting wherever you want and that will prevent the game from sucking the life out of me by the fiftieth time I have to hump back 3 map screen to get to the closest inn to rest, just so I can walk all the way back to where I was.

 

Can someone give me a logical reason why that sounds like fun? I mean that seriously.

[Shevek]

Well, me and you have a very different definition about what a RPG is. Stat checks are OK. Reputation checks are OK too. But skill checks are best, IMHO. By your logic, all skills can get removed and I do not think that would improve the game at all.

 

Also, what are you talking about? 2E had skills. Plenty of other systems have had skills too LONG before 3E.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Shevek

[Shevek]

The greatest "dialogue game" of all time, Planescape Torment, did not use skill checks.

 

By Avellone's own admission, Torment was not necessary great for its "RPG" bits. Also, I would say best dialogue of all time would be Grim Fandango - not an RPG at all. I am not arguing for or against good dialogue. I am talking about character development mechanics.

[Hormalakh]

Well, me and you have a very different definition about what a RPG is. Stat checks are. Reputation checks are OK too. But skill checks are best, IMHO. By your logic, all skills can get removed and I do not think that would improve the game at all.

 

Also, what are you talking about? 2E had skills. Plenty of other systems have had skills too LONG before 3E.

2e didn't have skills for dialogue. We're sticking to dialogue aren't we? I'm not saying we need to get rid of skills altogether. I'm saying use the right tool for the right job. If you only use a hammer, everything is a nail. Blah blah blah more vague metaphors.

 

I think we should definitely have skills. But only where they're relevant and make the game interesting to play. We've seen in the past that skill checks don't always play very well with dialgoue.

 

Edit: Yep checked the Player's Manual. The DM could add skills in if they wanted. But table 37 specifically has the skills that WotC implemented and you don't have dialogue based skills like intimidate, lie, etc.

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54918032/Player-s-Handbook-2101

page 54, table 37, nonweapon proficiencies

Edited December 7, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Shevek]

"We've seen in the past that skill checks don't always play very well with dialgoue."

 

And we have seen it work well too. Whats your point?

[High Octane 881]

I believe we have begun talking ourselves in a circle.

[Hormalakh]

"We've seen in the past that skill checks don't always play very well with dialgoue."

 

And we have seen it work well too. Whats your point?

 

Don't judge it before you've seen it.

[Hormalakh]

Im not sure I follow you. You are saying that deciding to push forward or not is tactical (1st paragraph) but what are you saying is not tactical (second paragraph)? Also, another great way to prevent rest spamming is to choose not to push the rest button.

 

Look, I know Im screwed here. There isnt going to be any difficulty level that adds a healer class, or healing spells, or potions, or resurrection, but at least a fellow can dream that there will be a "free rest" option that allows resting wherever you want and that will prevent the game from sucking the life out of me by the fiftieth time I have to hump back 3 map screen to get to the closest inn to rest, just so I can walk all the way back to where I was.

 

Can someone give me a logical reason why that sounds like fun? I mean that seriously.

 

Look, there are good tactics to use when fighting armies and terrible tactics to use when fighting armies. If you're wasting all your magic missles on the goblins and throwing your melee fighters with non-magical weapons at clay golems and then wondering why you're losing health, then you're not playing tactically. You aren't looking at the rules and making judgements based on them. You're just rolling the dice and hoping to win the crap shoot. There are absolutely "right" ways to win a fight and "wrong" ways to win a fight. It's not just armor/underwear. I mean ... come on. BG2 you knew that if you wanted to kill mages, oyu had to use breach first. If you didn't, you lost HP as the mages fireballed your dudes. If you played "tactically" you breached him, then sent in your melees for the kill. These are tactics.

 

You could also sometimes win by waiting for their protection spells to run out, but during all that time, your party members are losing health. You aren't playing effectively. You haven't figured out the important bit (breach mages).

 

It's fun because once you realize that you're doing it wrong the 100th time and realize your tactics need to be changed, you realize that you've been playing the game inefficiently. Then the mages and other dudes fall at your feet. And you feel like you've accomplished something. If they just make everything easy, then you're just playing for the story and the combat is there to distract from the cinema. If you aren't told where you're going wrong (by dying) then you just keep using the same bad tactics as before. The game should teach how how to play it, and then provide challenges to you to see whether you've learned from the basics or not.

 

Hiking back to town to rest isn't fun. It's supposed to be there to say "dude, you did it wrong."

 

Does that clear it up a little?

Edited December 7, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Infinitron]

The greatest "dialogue game" of all time, Planescape Torment, did not use skill checks.

 

By Avellone's own admission, Torment was not necessary great for its "RPG" bits. Also, I would say best dialogue of all time would be Grim Fandango - not an RPG at all. I am not arguing for or against good dialogue. I am talking about character development mechanics.

 

Maybe, but I'm sure he wasn't referring to its dialogue mechanics.

[rjshae]

I believe we have begun talking ourselves in a circle.

Can't pass conversation check; need to level up.

[AwesomeOcelot]

The greatest dialogue game is Fallout, followed by Bloodlines, both had skill check dialogue, Arcanum was great too, then New Vegas and Fallout 2. It's a hard sell to say that it's bad, doesn't work, and needs to thrown in the dustbin, a really hard sell.