RPG Codex Josh Sawyer Q&A

[Lephys]

Though we still have much to learn.

I'm sure if we speculate hard enough, we'll just will that knowledge into existence. 8D!

 

[Hormalakh]

socrates supposedly states that knowledge is just remembering what we already knew in the first place and that we may be merely "remembering" it again.

 

so lephys, i think you're right.

[JFSOCC]

In other news... I like very much what I heard about the crafting system of being complementary with the loot system.

 

 

Off-topic: Yeah, my 100th post. But I need to do something about my warning points, still at 0 ;-)

I loved what I heard about the sneaking, not so much this.

I was hoping to craft my own blades, to fit my own playstyle.

 

But since there's hinting at item-creation quests, I guess I can hope there will be a measure of customization in what you create that way.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The specific list may change, but the biggest difference players will notice in Attributes (compared to A/D&D ability scores) is that all of their bonuses are uniformly applied instead of being keyed to specific types of weapons or attacks. E.g. one Attribute affects bonus damage (and healing) and one affects bonus accuracy -- regardless of the weapons or spells being used.

 

We would like your character concepts to be viable regardless of how you distribute your Attributes. Part of our solution for this is decoupling things like Attribute-based accuracy and damage bonuses from specific types of gear or class abilities. The focus of your character may change based on how you shift the points around, but we want to avoid setting up "must-have" and "must-dump" stats.

I'm going to have to hear more details on this before I'm completely sold, but I could see it working. If the body is merely a vessel for the soul(which is the source of most power in the PE universe) having stats like "Power" and "Accuracy" that change use depending on the particular vessel(character) would make sense.

 

What I'm most concerned about is the Mechanics and Lore relationship. I prefer my games to have not have a stark separation between mechanics and lore, like when MAGIC! is the most powerful thing evah in the lore but mechanically can be beaten by anything. I do think having lore explanations for mechanics(like people becoming harder to kill as they grow in power to explain increasing hit points) adds a very nice touch to games.

Edited July 20, 2013 by KaineParker

[Sacred_Path]

- "Viable" does not equal "same." So I'm not seeing the problem.

Again, you're talking about a mythical place where differences are clearly pronounced so they are apparent to the player but so subtle as to make all classes equally viable as certain builds. Such a balance does not, however, exist.

 

- Your attributes WILL still matter. You still have various aspects to choose between to make your "tank": Do you sacrifice all his power and accuracy for hitpoints, or do you make sure he keeps some power and accuracy to reduce the amount of time he needs to stand there absorbing damage because he can not only draw targets to him/engage them but also take them down faster in direct melee combat? Do you just get him all the prereq's for the best armor? Do you make him super Agile to dodge AOE attacks, or is he just going to get annihilated by those while being able to go toe-to-toe with individual opponents?

no, that would be the 'old school' of attribute differentiation, but that's not how it's going to work. Again:

 

We would like your character concepts to be viable regardless of how you distribute your Attributes.

So, you CANNOT distribute your attributes on your fighter in a way that he wouldn't be the best of tanks anymore. What's better, you can't do the same on a mage either; put all your points into STR and INT and you'll still come out a tank.

 

- The class is still going to matter. If you make a Wizard tank, how much effectiveness are you sacrificing from the Wizard-specific abilities and specialties not supporting melee tanking as well as a Fighter?

I'm specifically talking about attributes. That a wizard can cast one less fireball if he casts one more shield spell is herp derp obvious.

 

 

Haha, "it's possible there will be an Advanced Tankery talent"? Wow. Please allow me to get you a Jump To Conclusions mat, from the film Office Space.

That was even going in favor of Sawyer's proposition. Because the other alternative is, attributes won't matter and talents won't matter either.

Edited July 20, 2013 by Sacred_Path

[ravenshrike]

This attribute thing does sound... odd.

Same attribute actually governs how hard I hit with an axe, how well I heal people and how how effectively I cast magic missiles?

Given that attributes will more likely be based on aspects of your soul rather than straight physicalites it makes perfect in-game sense. Now, depending on how they implement it it could still easily be a ****ty system, but it is rather easy to explain lore wise given the focus on the soul.

 

 

I'm disappointed, but I'll get over it.

 

I really like stats to mean different things to different characters and classes. Your charismatic Sorcerer, your intelligent Mage. And then 4e gave me a constitution based Warlock! It feeds my imagination and character ideas. Not just because you have your character who also happens to have this stat, but because of the implications of using power through that stat presents.

No it didn't. 3.5 gave you the Con based Hellfire Warlock. Which was utterly broken less than a year after it came out since the Item Compendium came out and there was a multiple use per day item that was relatively cheap(for when you could enter HW) that healed your Con points like a Pez dispenser. Especially since any Warlock that wasn't stupid sat there and took the Magicraft feats. Besides which 4th ed was just a watered down version of the Bo9S applied to all classes anyway.

Edited July 20, 2013 by ravenshrike

[Elerond]

It's intresting how simultaneousness was bad thing when we Obsidian presented durability system and demanded more "gamist" system. And now people demand more "simulationist" system, even though they use gamist terms like "tanking".

 

To me attribute system that encourage to build more "roleplaying" roles for the characters (like charismatic leader barbarian, intelligent stealthy fighter, dumb headbashing rogue, strong warrior wizard, etc.) than "gamist" roles for the characters (like tank, damage dealer, healer, etc.) is better sounding system.

[ravenshrike]

 

What I mean is that your attribute system makes no sense, if you divide your system in skills and combat abillities(abillities,spells and talents) as in Project Eternity. In your system you wouldn't be able to fight properly with the wrong attributes, but you would still get combat abillities.

hmm good point. perhaps all attributes should have combat and non-combat applications. which brings me back to why do we need attributes in the first place outside of character creation flavor?

 

Off the top of my head, because it allows for burst damage focused characters, average damage characters, survivable characters, and secondary effect(stun slow debuff heal buff) characters that  otherwise would have to run everything through skills/abilities. It allows another level of control

 

 

 

 

This crap is pulled straight out of your garden variety Asian MMORPG, RIP in piece Project Eternity

 

 

So what is the problem with that method aside from association with Asian MMORPGs?

 

The most obvious being that is removes most planning from chargen, makes it impossible to make/customize a character specialized in specific weapons.

 

I mean why should a character who has say a high Agility score be able to wield a Long Sword or a Spear with equal proficiency.

 

wrong example, perhaps a crossbow would be better.  why would more strength increase the damage of a crossbow?  higher dexterity boosts accuracy with weapons, thus increasing the chance to hit (this was even a feat with D&D).  but more damage? that would be strength, unless you have a nonphysical weapon (turn undead) or a weapon that uses mechanical operation for its strength (like a crossbow).

 

Depending on crossbow design it would have adjustable tension. In which case strength would determine how fast it took to load or even if you were able to fire it at all.

 

 

 

- some classes are naturally great tanks while others naturally suck

 

both of which don't offer the flexibility in character building that I hoped for. Yes there are talents, and it is possible that there will be talents à la "Advanced Tankery! This tanky ability makes you a tank" and it's just herp derp and failproof and needs to die in a fire.

 

How is it diferent than any IE game you can name?

 

Class>stats.  A STR10/DEX10?CON10 is still a better fighter and tank that a STR20/DEX20?CON20 wizard

 

Actually, in 3.5 the spellcaster would almost certainly be the better tank and possibly the better melee specialist depending on spell choice. Assuming the primary mental stats was at least 16, possibly 17.

 

 

Note, the above is more of a reflection on how ****ty basic fighter design was in well, all the  D&D games until Pathfinder/4th Ed. The only reason it wasn't that notable in 1st/2nd ed was because everybody else was so much weaker until med-high levels for the spellcasters

Edited July 20, 2013 by ravenshrike

[nikolokolus]

OK, I just slogged through this whole thing and all I came away with is that D&D has REALLY become deeply ingrained in peoples' imagination when it comes to conceptualizing character statistics and abilities in an RPG.

 

I freely admit I'm not sure I get how everything will work and just what the character framework is all about, but there's really nothing to judge until we get to see how the game responds to our choices and character builds.

[tajerio]

I think this is a nice move forward from the stale attribute system of D&D.  In D&D and the CRPGs that used a D&D system, the role and class I wanted to play more or less dictated my attribute allocation.  If I wanted to make a rogue who was only middlingly dexterous and fairly stupid, but was super strong and hardy, yeah, I could do that, but then my rogue would be terrible at his role.  P:E seems to be shooting for the possibility that you can build a bunch of different fighters, rogues, wizards, etc. who will all be capable of successfully contributing to combat and non-combat resolution.  They might not all be excellent, but they will all be mechanically useful.  I don't see how it's a bad thing that we'll have more options for character concepts that actually work both in terms of mechanics and in terms of roleplaying.

[LadyCrimson]

OK, I just slogged through this whole thing and all I came away with is that D&D has REALLY become deeply ingrained in peoples' imagination when it comes to conceptualizing character statistics and abilities in an RPG.

Agreed. People often seem to want something fresh and innovative, but then if it strays too far into the unfamiliar....

 

I can't really think of anything to say at this point... I needz moah info first. I definitely understand being used to/liking the stat/ability methods of old, but on the other hand, I did often find them a bit restricting and/or nowhere near as flexible as they might sound on the surface. So something different might be interesting. Depends on what the execution really ends up meaning, especially in relation to any/all other chr. game mechanics, vs. a single interview quote. As they say ... we shall see!

[Prometheus]

no, that would be the 'old school' of attribute differentiation, but that's not how it's going to work. Again:

 

We would like your character concepts to be viable regardless of how you distribute your Attributes.

So, you CANNOT distribute your attributes on your fighter in a way that he wouldn't be the best of tanks anymore. What's better, you can't do the same on a mage either; put all your points into STR and INT and you'll still come out a tank.

 

I think all Josh Sawyer says is that all classes can make builds which uses different attributes. In d&d most of the time you had to take specific attributtes to make a good build, for example you need high int to cast high level spells in D&D 3.5.

The focus of your character may change based on how you shift the points around, but we want to avoid setting up "must-have" and "must-dump" stats

So if you make a high int low str fighter he will be viable but he has a different focus as a low int, hight str fighter. Edited July 20, 2013 by Prometheus

[Sacred_Path]

I think all Josh Sawyer says is that all classes can make builds which uses different attributes. In d&d most of the time you had to take specific attributtes to make a good build, for example you need high int to cast high level spells in D&D 3.5.

The focus of your character may change based on how you shift the points around, but we want to avoid setting up "must-have" and "must-dump" stats

These two quotes (yours and mine) contradict each other, but I am inclined to believe in yours more because mine just makes the system seem blatantly moronic. But yeah misunderstandins can happen when you deconstruct the words of a game dev.

Edited July 20, 2013 by Sacred_Path

[Sensuki]

It's intresting how simultaneousness was bad thing when we Obsidian presented durability system and demanded more "gamist" system. And now people demand more "simulationist" system, even though they use gamist terms like "tanking".

Wrong. Crafting was a gamist system, not a simulationist one.

[Prometheus]

 

I think all Josh Sawyer says is that all classes can make builds which uses different attributes. In d&d most of the time you had to take specific attributtes to make a good build, for example you need high int to cast high level spells in D&D 3.5.

The focus of your character may change based on how you shift the points around, but we want to avoid setting up "must-have" and "must-dump" stats

These two quotes (yours and mine) contradict each other, but I am inclined to believe in yours more because mine just makes the system seem blatantly moronic. But yeah misunderstandins can happen when you deconstruct the words of a game dev.

 

It depends what Josh Sawyer understands under a character concept. If he means a "gamist" character concepts like high damage fighter or high health fighter(tank),yes that's when they contradict each other. But if he means "rpg" character concepts like a weak fighter, dumb mage or a strong mage, then they wouldn't contradict each other.

[Sacred_Path]

It depends what Josh Sawyer understands under a character concept. If he means a "gamist" character concepts like high damage fighter or high health fighter(tank),yes that's when they contradict each other. But if he means "rpg" character concepts like a weak fighter, dumb mage or a strong mage, then they wouldn't contradict each other.

Not sure what you mean by 'rpg character concept', but in my quote he basically said your attributes won't affect your concept at all.

[Prometheus]

 

It depends what Josh Sawyer understands under a character concept. If he means a "gamist" character concepts like high damage fighter or high health fighter(tank),yes that's when they contradict each other. But if he means "rpg" character concepts like a weak fighter, dumb mage or a strong mage, then they wouldn't contradict each other.

Not sure what you mean by 'rpg character concept', but in my quote he basically said your attributes won't affect your concept at all.

 

With a rpg character concept I mean something like this: Hans is a highborn noble fighter. He never trained much in his youth, but he is well educated and has high charisma.his stats would be something like this:

Str: 10 Con: 8 Int:   14 Will: 10 Ch: 16

They said that they want to use the attributes in dialog, so you would be very charismatic in dialog.

game concept would maybe something like this: high crit, high defenses, low hp, low attack bonus.

So the system would allow to play a charismatic fighter in dialogs, but in combat you would have different strength and weaknesses as a strong fighter.

Edited July 20, 2013 by Prometheus

[Sacred_Path]

With a rpg character concept I mean something like this: Hans is a highborn noble fighter. He never trained much in his youth, but he is well educated and has high charisma.his stats would be something like this:

Str: 10 Con: 8 Int:   14 Will: 10 Ch: 16

They said that they want to use the attributes in dialog, so you would be very charismatic in dialog.

game concept would maybe something like this: high crit, high defenses, low hp, low attack bonus.

So the system would allow to play a charismatic fighter in dialogs, but in combat you would have different strength and weaknesses as a strong fighter.

So you mean a non-traditional min maxed character. Yes your quote would support that, while mine would imply that your attributes are simply mostly meaningless. As I said, I hope that he simply worded his statement awkwardly.

[Valorian]

Also, guis, just because charisma was a dump stat* in many d&d games for combat oriented classes doesn't mean that it has to be in other games.

Intelligence and wisdom wasn't. (Improved) combat expertise is very yummy and a bonus to will saves is yummy for everyone.

 

*Even considering that mechanically it is a dump stat for fighter-types, a smart developer would put quite a few charisma checks throughout the game.

[Chilloutman]

Hmm, I am not sure if I understand it correctly

 

if there will be one stat ''power'' which affects how powerfull wizard spell is and same stat determine how powerfull blow can fighter done I dont like it. Its good system and I know it works quite well for fast paced combat mechanics but for top down view RPG it feels... to simplistic?

 

I think they going for this:

 

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Attribute#Primary_attributes

 

I would much more like if they can pick SPECIAL or DnD system and improve it. I like when my character have some 'real' characteristics. I know where problem with these system is but I see clearly how to improve it without scraping it completely.

 

Common example is fighter. 18Str/3int vs 14str/15int

 

to make 15int matter, simply add abilities which rely on that skill. For example feat (can be ability) combat expertise (add int bonus to AC) - make it scale with int modifier and now you have good stat for your tank fighter. And make somehow equal number of abilities which rely on each stat and there will be no useless attribute at all.

 

another example: wizard 8str/18int vs 15str/15int

 

spell Nethersword - mage enchant weapon in his hand drawing power from his soul for limited number of attacks. number of attacks = int modifier, bonus damage 1.5x str modifier

 

now you have somehow balanced spell, but 15str mage can use bigger weapon and some armor as well

 

 

Problem was not with bad primary attributes, problem was with lack of abilities relying on them.

 

my 2 cents

[Sylvius the Mad]

For better or for worse, that is not the policy of Obsidian Entertainment.

In a fantasy setting, verisimilitude is generally more valuable than realism. But gamist designs are typically really bad at maintaining verisimilitude.

 

I'm willing to be surprised, but this sounds like bad news. It should be possible to design a character suboptimally.

[decado]

 

 

It is not a good thing. This is not his money. This game is not for the realization of his childhood ability fantasies.

 

it is all that. we all gave them the money so that they're able to create a game based on their own vision. they promised us an ie like experience which consists of a party based rtwp rpg with isometric pre-rendered backgrounds. obsidian never said that they want to mimic (a)dnd and its attribute allocation.

 

This times 1000! It is his money, exactly.  Or perhaps it is better to say it is Obsidian's money. But we gave it to them, trusting in their vision.  What's the big deal?  Do you trust them, or not?

 

Perhaps the worst thing to come out of crowdfunding video games is the overblown sense of entitlement it creates.  I'm glad they are doing something different with the attribute system, because it has been silly since DnD. Not to mention, nobody is even sure how it is going to work yet.  He was cagey in his RPG Codex interview, and he was cagey in his Formspring answer, presumably because they are still working on building and testing the system.  

[Lephys]

Again, you're talking about a mythical place where differences are clearly pronounced so they are apparent to the player but so subtle as to make all classes equally viable as certain builds. Such a balance does not, however, exist.

... Come again? o_O. I really don't understand what you're saying here. And why do you keep misconstruing classes' capability to be equally viable with a variety of builds?

 

Simple difference? In lots of old RPGs, you simply could not make a Wizard who tanked. He'd be a mutant. Once you got to the end of the game, he'd be like 17-times wussier and less viable than a Warrior who was a tank. Now? You can potentially make a beefy, frontline Wizard. How does this make him not a Wizard anymore and all a Warrior? He's still going to play as a Wizard instead of a Warrior, and you still had to adapt your usage of him and his skill/ability/talent build around your allocation of stat points. You have to do that differently with a Warrior.

 

Are you suggesting that the optimum system is one in which the ONLY significant difference between a Warrior and a Wizard is that the Wizard has few hitpoints and low Strength and armor, and the Warrior has a veritable fountain of hitpoints, high Strength, and high armor? The rest of class-specifics are inconsequential? Because, if you're saying that, then that's crazy. And I don't think you're saying that. In which case, we're back to the game of "where's the imaginary problem?"

 

no, that would be the 'old school' of attribute differentiation, but that's not how it's going to work. Again:

 

We would like your character concepts to be viable regardless of how you distribute your Attributes.

So, you CANNOT distribute your attributes on your fighter in a way that he wouldn't be the best of tanks anymore. What's better, you can't do the same on a mage either; put all your points into STR and INT and you'll still come out a tank.

 

A) You're definitely reading FAR too deeply into that quote, and taking it wayyyy too literally. Almost any sentence in the English language could be highly misconstrued with enough effort. I'm pretty sure all he meant was that each stat offers the potential to support a certain build aspect, no matter your class. Not "If you just randomly drop points in random things, you're still going to just automatically be the best whatever-role-you-can-think-of, 8D!"

 

B) Maxing out your Wizard's Power and Health don't make him the best tank. It's still up to how you use him, and the plethora of other factors that make up a build (again, there's a LOT more than just stats that comprise a character.) Besides, I already pointed out how the Warrior having Defender when no other class does already makes him unique in the melee-engagement aspect, which factors into the super-ultra-vague role of "tank." That's just one example, and it's so potent, I don't even think I need to waste my time trying to think of a longer list of them.

 

I'm specifically talking about attributes. That a wizard can cast one less fireball if he casts one more shield spell is herp derp obvious.

 

Ehh... again... ... what? o_O

 

That was even going in favor of Sawyer's proposition. Because the other alternative is, attributes won't matter and talents won't matter either.

Yet another lovely claim devoid of any presented basis. If you could say WHY that's true, we can do more than just subjectively shrug each other off (i.e. actually continue in a constructive manner).

[Sylvius the Mad]

You're definitely reading FAR too deeply into that quote, and taking it wayyyy too literally.

I can't even begin to fathom what it might mean to take something "too literally."

[Lephys]

 

You're definitely reading FAR too deeply into that quote, and taking it wayyyy too literally.

I can't even begin to fathom what it might mean to take something "too literally."

 

Example:

 

Okay, Sawyer said "No matter how you allocate your points." So, we could surmise "Hey, that means if you just put 1 point into each stat, then click 'create', you've STILL got a viable character! 8D!"

 

When, obviously he was assuming people weren't going to imply such a silly thing from those words, even though they could technically mean that.

 

But, people seem to be implying something almost as silly. That, somehow, it just no longer matters what you do with points. "You could put 5 billion points in Agility, and 1 point in Power, and you're still just going to have the same Warrior. The attributes don't even do anything anymore, just because Warriors and Wizards use the same attribute for Power instead of the Warrior using Strength and the Wizard using Intelligence."