Degenerate Gameplay

[SqueakyCat]

Just in case not everyone saw this post from Josh (post 92):

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/62924-sawyerism-distilled-an-interview-with-josh-sawyer-at-iron-tower-studio/page-5

 

I want to say something about my high-level approach to design, whether the systems being described are dialogue, rest mechanics, or how you gain experience: the bottom line for any mechanic is how it affects the ways in which players play the game. I.e., after all of the theorizing, all of the speculation, and all of the strong statements of feeling on a mechanic, what matters is how people play the game.

So when I write that what Tim and I want to do is use quest/objective/challenge XP as the primary (if not only) methods of achieving XP, that means "want" will give way to "reality" if they are in conflict -- conflict in practice, not conflict in a forum discussion. When changing the system requires relatively little effort, there's not a ton of benefit to being absolutist over a year in advance. Moving from a class-based to classless system -- that's a big deal. That's something you decide and pretty much stick with. Deciding whether to give XP for monsters or not give XP for monsters -- that's not a big deal. That's easy to address, even late in development. Deciding whether people can rest at certain locations or they can rest anywhere is also pretty easy to address.

These things exist on a sliding scale of difficulty, implementation/adjustment-wise. We plan things so we can make the simple changes easily later on. Generally that means creating simple base layers of mechanics and adding in "adjustment" or tuning mechanics when the metrics/gameplay we see demands it.         

 

I'd interpret that to mean they are taking the quest/objective/challenge XP method to beta.   Hopefully, everyone here with a strong view on either side will be participating in the beta so you can support your position with in-game examples since a 'conflict in practice' is what would be a determining factor in making adjustments to this design decision, not forum discussion. 

 

There have been multiple other threads discussing the XP issue, so they have heard voices from both sides of the aisle and have decided to go with this method unless 'want gives way to reality'.   These are just a few:

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60533-experience-for-killing-enemies/

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61533-update-24-less-than-30-hours-to-go-life-and-death-and-audio-cd-soundtrack/page-3

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61543-are-you-for-or-against-gaining-experience-points-only-for-completing-objectives/

 

I can understand everyone wanting to add their view on the subject and have their opinion on record (I know I did), but it seems like it's just tilting at windmills at this point. 

 

There is entertainment value in the thread, however.

[Hormalakh]

Hehe...entertainment indeed. Until someone gets hurt.

Edited January 21, 2013 by Hormalakh

[Hormalakh]

What kind of cake are you offering TRX850? Can I have some? ... I really want cake now.

[Sacred_Path]

I can understand everyone wanting to add their view on the subject and have their opinion on record (I know I did), but it seems like it's just tilting at windmills at this point.

Josh's answer to why there's now a 'miss' mechanic planned for the game:

People proposed various character concepts ("dodgy" ones) that didn't seem as mechanically sensible in the system without a full miss state.

Therefore, I wouldn't discount forum discussion completely, o Voice of Reason.

 

There is entertainment value in the thread, however.

And it certainly beats discussing things that we don't even know about yet ('Feat X should absolutely be in the game!' - 'O noes! It would be overpowered compared to feat Y I'd like to see!')

[TRX850]

Hormalakh, was that your sense of humour a few posts back? Cos I kinda knee-jerked to what I thought was yet another misrepresentation of legitimate concerns.

 

Just so you know, I'm from a generation that remembers

. Though I'm not from that country.

[Sacred_Path]

dafuq did I just watch

[TRX850]

What kind of cake are you offering TRX850? Can I have some? ... I really want cake now.

 

It's almost all gone. I still have some banana cake, or passion fruit with strawberries.

 

There might even be a treasure map in one of them....!!

 

Or not. That would be a health and safety risk. 

Edited January 21, 2013 by TRX850

[Hormalakh]

Hormalakh, was that your sense of humour a few posts back? Cos I kinda knee-jerked to what I thought was yet another misrepresentation of legitimate concerns.

 

Just so you know, I'm from a generation that remembers

. Though I'm not from that country.

Which post? I don't question anyone's love for these kinds of games. Are you making these cakes? I want to try passion fruit.

Edited January 21, 2013 by Hormalakh

[TRX850]

Ok. Never mind. I think my high-horse-ometer was a little thrown.

 

Passion Fruit it is, sir. / slice.  Enjoy.

[Lephys]

YAY, WE WON WHILE I WAS AWAY FOR THE WEEKEND!

 

Haha. I joke. The only thing I see as a win is actual discussion taking place, and people who don't want to discuss ceasing to clutter things up.

 

But, I'm glad the heat has died down.

 

I think if this thread is being ignored by the devs at this point, it's probably because they already trusted themselves to consider all the necessary factors affected by their decision in the first place, and they've taken into account anything we could possibly say in here already.

 

I think the miss thread is a perfect example of how actual discussion, though long and arduous, offers positive criticism, analysis, and contribution that benefits everyone. But when you get something as long as this thread, with so much "I'm just posting to tell you that people who don't believe what I believe are morons" instead of "here's an intelligent, contributive constructive criticism of your contribution, and now we have an even better understanding of the factors involved with the design decision being discussed," I see the chance that the devs will have the time to read through it all and weed out the unnecessary drop drastically.

 

The last thing I'll say on the matter is this: Kills could always be marked as direct objectives, where it is reasonable, and not where it is not. I have every confidence in the ability of the development team to discern which is which in the balancing and further design ironing-out of the rest of the game. And if they need to change it (like the miss mechanic), they will do so. But it's going to be because there's a reason, and not because a bunch of people childishly protested the decision made out of sheer preference and ignored intelligent discussion about it.

[Amentep]

That's how we'd also play sometimes. The crucial difference is that we had a DM who would gently keep us on track with the current quest so we didn't stray. In a computer game where players tend to rail against linear design, it means you don't *have* to stick to linear quest completion. You could accept half a dozen quests in town, and do a little bit of one, more in another one, wander across to the edge of the map (continent), accept a few more quests, accidentally kill a plot based character because he was "looking at you funny" and so on and so forth.

I've had two DMs, one who was like yours mostly any adjustments made on the fly were to get the game back to on his chosen course. The other would just build ideas on the fly and deal with it if we went off the rails. Both were good; both gave us experience so we weren't feeling cheated. But it was never when we killed an orc each time (at best we might get encounter XP)

 

Yes, it would be "cleaner" if you just stuck to your quests like a good little adventurer, but for many many legitimate reasons (you're playing evil, or have a God complex, or some other roleplaying theme) any quest can be broken at any time. You can of course go back to a quest later, but if your reputation has altered things, or you've managed to unknowingly complete parts of other quests, but not in a way the quest-giver wanted, then there are just too many ways to break Quest-XP as the core reward system. Now you might say, 'no one in their right mind would do all that stuff I described above' ^^, and I would like to think that were true, but you should never underestimate a player's desire to be creative/different/idiotic/weird or menial in their own game. If they do sway from the quests, but are still adventuring and discovering things and defeating "enemies", then that's not a good reason to remove their XP rewards. It's simply not the same as PnP. Which is a damn shame.

Well, I don't know if its a shame or just different.

[TRX850]

Well, I don't know if its a shame or just different.

 

I was a bit fired up when I wrote that. But I've chilled out now.

[Hassat Hunter]

@Hassat

 

So you seem to want to know how I really feel Hassat.  You're a jerk.  I'm sitting at the starting line and you're already at the finish yet you come back to mock me.  Why exactly?

I can see you're being emotional when posting this, since I can't recall trying to be hostile to you anywhere. Also, pretty much :scratchhead: on above sentence.

I've put 1000+ hours into the BG series and I let this one slip.  Should tell you how very little control I have over my emotions right now.

Yeah, assumed you had forgotten. Hence why I pointed it out .

 

It shows with a few NPC's giving rewards some foes can be extra rewarded if needed to be. And it would solve issues like "why would I kill the Winter Wolf near the Inn?" Well, for it's pelt and the extra bounty on it's pelt in Nashkal.

When combat xp becomes grindy then yes it becomes an mmo staple.  Thankfully as the years have gone on it seems it started to shift to quests more then grinding.  Though there are, of course, still some hold outs.

Indeed. Which IMO is a good progression. PE is taking it a step further even.

It's going bad to the point someone made about that they fixed "loopholes" in the combat-XP system. And I still think this is indeed an evolution of that idea. Especially when made with the mindstyle that it shouldn't allow just combat, but more modern popular tropes like the diplomat or the stealthy RPG-player.

When the BG's where released RPG was pretty much a dead-genre. Since being made from the ground up of course they were a little limited. But since then RPG's made advancements. Some good, some bad.

 

If you aren't making a modern RPG without looking at the good advancements, you're just harming yourself. Same for the bad advancements. They should be kept in mind as so to not repeat issues that were already encountered in the past. If you just forget or ignore them you're just bound to repeat them again.

 

And also while we could make just a game for the RPG-players of old (us), wouldn't you want to open up the genre to the others too? Allow them to have their classic too? Make them also enjoy a solid RPG like it's meant to be instead of, say, Mass Effect? I would think the more people we can love these types of games the better. Without starting to make the game dumbed down to suit everyone's needs of course...

Funny, I never had the trouble of not wanting to explore but it's okay Hassat they'll give you xp for that so you win anyways.  You'll have your very own "carrot" whereas my "degenerate carrot" will be handily discarded.  Congratulations.

It wasn't really much a reply to you, as well as frequent statements in this very thread that without combat-XP exploring would be useless. Completely ignoring the facts that it would wield XP and rare treasures (some people apparently think they're lying around on the street).

Honestly, personally, without XP exploring would still not be useless to me, but it was just making a point to the people who think exploring was useless since exploration apparently doesn't wield much more than just foes with no XP.

 

I still think some people are in the mindset Obsidian is making a Torchlight III or Diablo IV from some of the discussions and points made here, rather than Baldur's Gate III or Planescape: Torment.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Hassat Hunter

[TRX850]

The new reputation system seems like a step forward, by doing away with D&D alignments, so I'm interested to see how that affects player choices.

 

It might be a simple matter of: if a player attempts to kill everything in the game for the supposed combat xp, their reputation takes a dive, which in turn closes off certain future side quests. Because those quest-givers have heard the rumours and are not interested in doing business, therefore denying the player potential quest xp.

 

Swings and roundabouts.

[JFSOCC]

The new reputation system seems like a step forward, by doing away with D&D alignments, so I'm interested to see how that affects player choices.

 

It might be a simple matter of: if a player attempts to kill everything in the game for the supposed combat xp, their reputation takes a dive, which in turn closes off certain future side quests. Because those quest-givers have heard the rumours and are not interested in doing business, therefore denying the player potential quest xp.

 

Swings and roundabouts.

or just assume that's how the player wants to play the game and narrow his path to mostly combat encounters.

[Ffordesoon]

If you want to play a game about making numbers go up, there are plenty available. The IE games' strength was that they were about the content itself. The numbers are a means to an end, not an end in themselves.

[Helm]

If you want to play a game about making numbers go up, there are plenty available. The IE games' strength was that they were about the content itself. The numbers are a means to an end, not an end in themselves.

 

lol what a bunch of BS.

 

So what are you suggesting, completly removing xp so that no more numbers go up at all? You know, this is how publishers think, and that is why RPGs are practically dead... and now you are saying this is a good thing?

 

And I am not surprised that PrimeJunta and Lephys liked your post. Really, I am not surprised at all.

[PrimeJunta]

Don't you understand the meaning of the phrase "means to an end" either? I can explain it to you if you like.

[Helm]

Don't you understand the meaning of the phrase "means to an end" either? I can explain it to you if you like.

He just said the content is what made the IE games great and the system to a much, much lesser extent (obvious, for a combat hater). And too many numberz r bad, bad bad. Which is utter BS by the way. The System and the content made the games great, not one or the other.

 

I would tell you to go and learn how to read and comprehend whole sentences... But as I have seen from your gazillion posts you want the great content minus the "complicated" RPG system.

[PrimeJunta]

Well then you really cannot into reading, as that's not what I've been saying at all. You'll find I'm arguing for more tactical complexity in another thread on this very forum, for example -- specifically, better and deeper rules covering movement in combat and the blocking thereof.

 

I do agree with Ffordeson that the content made the IE games great, and the system to a much lesser extent, though. I'd go one further, actually -- I'd say the IE games were great despite the underlying system, not because of it. AD&D is frankly awful, and D&D 3 is decent for tabletop but a poor fit for a cRPG. The great strength of IE was that it made it easy for authors to create quality content for them. The systems themselves got the job done, barely, but no more than that.

 

That does not mean I want less numbers in a cRPG. Quite the opposite, actually -- computers are really good at arithmetic and looking things up in tables, so IMO we should use more of them to add depth to the gameplay. Computers make it possible to manage depth and complexity than no PnP system could, easily. It would be silly not to take advantage of this. Whether all of those numbers need to be exposed to the player is a different matter.

 

What do I want, then? I want an (1) isometric, (2) party-based cRPG with (3) deep and varied character development options, (4) tactically interesting combat, (5) a sprawling world with lots of stuff to do in it, (6) interesting companions, (7) compelling storylines, [8] complex rich, and interesting magic, and (9) mechanics good enough and complex enough to support the whole. And yeah, I will be disappointed if the mechanics turn out as bad (or poorly fitted to a cRPG) as D&D. Thus far, I have seen no indication that this is to be the case.

Edited February 4, 2013 by PrimeJunta

[Helm]

Well, Josh seems to be copying a lot from D&D 4E....

 

But nobody ever expected PE to use D&D rules anyway, only the fundamental mechanics.

[PrimeJunta]

Oh? I didn't expect that. I expected some basic similarities -- races, abilities, classes, progression through XP, and some sort of spell/skill/feat system, but that's about it.

 

(Personally I wouldn't have been devastated even if they hadn't stuck to the formula even that much. I prefer classless and XP-less systems and don't much care for varied player races, for example.)

[Amentep]

I didn't expect PE would have any similarities with any D&D other than being "fantasy".  My expectation of PE was not defined within a framework of what was (or wasn't) in D&D or really in the IE games  themselves; maybe I'm just not imaginative enough, but I couldn't see a game being able to be both Planescape: Torment AND Icewind Dale at the same time.

[Razsius]

If you want to play a game about making numbers go up, there are plenty available. The IE games' strength was that they were about the content itself. The numbers are a means to an end, not an end in themselves.

 

. I'm with Helm on this one, I mean what the hell this statement makes no sense.  Just what kind of rpgs you been playing all your life?  ALL of them have "numbers go up" including xpless systems like those in Elder Scrolls games.  I don't get it Prime...

 

@PrimeJunta

 

 

What do I want, then? I want an (1) isometric, (2) party-based cRPG with (3) deep and varied character development options, (4) tactically interesting combat, (5) a sprawling world with lots of stuff to do in it, (6) interesting companions, (7) compelling storylines, [8] complex rich, and interesting magic, and (9) mechanics good enough and complex enough to support the whole. And yeah, I will be disappointed if the mechanics turn out as bad (or poorly fitted to a cRPG) as D&D. Thus far, I have seen no indication that this is to be the case.

 

A statement I can certainly agree with.  Funny how we seem to want the same things.

 

Well, Josh seems to be copying a lot from D&D 4E....

 

But nobody ever expected PE to use D&D rules anyway, only the fundamental mechanics.

 

I don't know about that.  D&D mechanics were clunky as hell when adopted for a crpg.  Those 6 second rounds drove me nuts as I had to constantly guess when I could chug another potion or use another item and at the difficulty I always play at 6 seconds is your death if you aren't careful.  I could also do without the AC mechanics of D&D and i'm not particularly attached to D20 rolls, etc.  These mechanics are certainly things i'm familiar with but it's not like it's the only system i've ever seen used in rpgs.  In fact, this is probably the area rpgs should always be "evolving."  Anyways, let me tag you out as you could probably use some rest.

 

@Hassat and Lephys

 

You guys push me even when I don't want to be pushed.  I shouldn't really be surprised though as it's not like I can't understand the feeling of wanting to talk/interact with an individual I deem as "more than worth it."  Though, you should see it just a little from my perspective, I tend to get just a little worn out when I feel that a certain game designer isn't even trying to see what I believe to be an issue as a problem.  Still, I owe you guys an apology as I did overreact a bit and besides from your posts did come an idea.  One that should hopefully illustrate the point of why Josh's example of a choice is actually no choice at all and why I basically completely and fundamentally disagree with it.

 

It's Origin Bullet time .  Try not to get hit by one....

 

You know it's funny after Lephys last post I realized that I would actually be okay with 0 xp as a penalty for not using your head as a gamer/roleplayer.  So in that sense I propose a simple hybrid system no combat xp for neutral or friendly mobs/npcs.  Killing a neutral goblin faction that's sitting around in the middle of nowhere not really harassing anybody really shouldn't be rewarded.  I suppose in that sense i'm tired of playing a person only interested in mass genocide.  Completely ignoring the hostile faction of hobgoblins ambushing people on the road between cities?  Yea you should take an xp hit for that.  Roleplaying a coward should not be a viable option and it sure as hell shouldn't be rewarded for it.  Neutral bears and wolves wandering the woods that only become aggressive if you get close makes more realistic sense and xpwise shouldn't really be rewarded though maybe you can trade in bear pelts for gold and in the process piss off the nearby Druids of the Evergrove.  So you can do it but you don't have to do it.  Likewise, any combat forced on a player or proposed as a viable option should simply be rewarded and handily too if you have to spend a good chunk of resources.  One of my favorite things to do in Baldur's Gate was to go basilisk hunting and as I recall there wasn't much in the way of treasure or quests that directed you to do so.  Instead, it was simply more of a challenging hunt of a legendary monster.  Getting zip xp and no loot for an enemy that can instantly kill you is more than a little lame and kind of defeats the entire purpose of rewarding a player for going out of their way to do things "off the track."  I don't need npcs pointing in a direction saying "there's a sense of wonder right over there."

 

But here's where it all comes together with an example and perhaps to show the very reason why I think combat xp is a good thing not an inherently system breaking bad thing.

 

So the scenario is a hostile cult faction of a long forgotten god has recently moved into a nearby cave complex of the town/city you are questing in.  They are collecting a toll/harassing/taxing all who pass their "sacred grounds" this obviously does not fly with the local authorities.  Amidst the faction is both a cult leader (obviously) and a sacred artifact of their god (Eye of the Forgotten God).  There are 4 ways to solve the quest and the rewards of solving it each way give an actual choice to you the player.

 

Combat Path = 30k xp for quest completion + 15k xp for killing cult leader + 20k misc. kill xp + loot + unique loot off cult leader + quest reward (Living weapon?)

 

The combat path through the quest would require both brains and brawn.  It would not be an easy brute force kill everything in sight method to solve the quest but an infiltration of a heavily fortified enemy compound.  Cult members being able to raise the alarm would equate to a quick death by horde (ie near endless spawning cultists).  Faction reputations might rise or fall because you handled the quest in a blood filled fashion.  This could be good or bad for you the player though it might be hard to tell.  The Living Weapon quest reward might be uniquely powerful weapon and be more than worth the effort of taking this particular path but again it would largely be up to the player on what it's true value was.

 

Stealth Path = 25k xp for quest completion + 12.5k xp for finding the cult treasure room + 15k+ in gold and stolen merchant items + quest reward (Cowl of the Spirit Fox)

 

The stealth path through the quest would require careful timing and patience through the cave stronghold of the cultists.  In order to steal the Eye of the Forgotten God and thus destroy the cult's entire reason for existence, the player would have to stealthily gather data by listening in on conversations among various npcs as well as filching a randomly placed code book off a key member of the cult (can only be acquired through the "pickpocket" skill).  Finding the hidden cult treasure room and filching everything in it would set events in motion that only allow you to find a path quickly through the cave complex or be completely overrun by the now very angered cultists.  Staying to fight would simply not be an option.  The hidden room would only be found if you took this stealth path.  Turning in the Eye of the Forgotten God to the quest giver completes the quest and rewards you with various faction gains and losses (determined by the player as "good" or not) and a cowl that would vastly improve a thief type character.  The massive extra coinage from robbing the cult blind could afford the player options to purchase items not available in other paths.

 

Diplomatic Path = 20k xp for quest completion + 10k for convincing cultists to follow you + an entire faction at your beck and call (new quests/options later available) + Eye of the Forgotten God + quest reward (Robe of the Diplomatic Advisor)

 

The diplomatic path would involve gathering information across the town concerning what the cult's habits/lives/history all are.  Getting the history and finding out who the forgotten god actually is would require a fair amount of detective work on the players part.  Only equipped with the right information could the player convince the cult leader that he/she is the avatar of the forgotten god.  The Eye of the Forgotten God would be given to you (it's your artifact after all) and the cult would leave it's present location due to your command to do so.  Going back to the quest giver gives the appropriate amount of xp and faction gain and loss but the quest giver does not accept the Eye of the Forgotten God (as it's proof of you being a "divine being").  The quest reward would be a Robe strongly tied to giving the equipped character buffs to non combat skills of the diplomatic variety (charisma and the like).  It should be noted that the Eye could be a VERY powerful artifact.

 

Evil Path = 30k xp for quest completion + 15k xp for killing cult leader + unique loot off cult leader + Eye of the Forgotten God + "cult tribute" to you + quest reward (evil armor + weapon of great power)

 

Plays similarly to the diplomatic path but after taking the persona of the forgotten god you strike down the cult leader and take the cult over.  The benefits listed above are very obvious with the exception of the tribute which might be a steady cash/goods flow to you through the rest of the game.  You would not turn in the quest to the original quest giver but would instead turn it in to the now unsealed weapon + armor combo in the "office" of the cult leader.  MASSIVE faction loss with the city/town you were questing in as well as other powerful factions you may not want to make enemies of.  MASSIVE faction gain to certain evil factions.  Certain parts of the game would probably be closed off though new and very evil parts may open.  It's good to be bad... or is it?

 

Now the real question.  Which is the best path?  Welcome to actual choice.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Razsius

[PrimeJunta]

@Raszius: it's about the why of those numbers. There are games where the numbers going up are the game, more or less. Roguelikes, MMO's, the Diablo series, arguably some of the more dungeon-crawly of the IE series (the IWD's, ToEE). 

 

Then there are games where the numbers are a means to an end. There are numbers and they go up, for sure, and as they go up, you get stronger. But that's not all they're about. The numbers interact with the rest of the game to determine your place in an imagined world, and the imprint you leave on it. I'd put Fallout, PS:T, BG2, MotB, the KOTOR's, and VtM:B in this category. They're games that are about something, and the system is just a way to hold whatever they're about. In general, I prefer that kind of game.

 

So the way I read Ffordeson's intent, and the way I feel about this stuff, is that I prefer games where the system -- the numbers that go up -- are of instrumental value only. They're the vessel that holds the wine. A crystal goblet won't make rotgut any more palatable, and a fine wine will be good even drunk from a cracked clay mug. 

 

This is also why I think the most important feature of the game system is that it makes the lives of the vintners as easy as possible; lets them pour in the kind of wine they want to make. That's the main reason (although there are others) I'm firmly in the "placed XP" camp: it's way easier to tune than any form of "systemic XP" and so makes it easier for them to make us a better wine.