RPG Codex Josh Sawyer Q&A

[Sylvius the Mad]

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!"

Words have meaning.

 

It could also mean that we won't be allowed to assign points in such extreme ways - that viable scores will be mechanically enforced (much like how NWN2 had a minimum score that was well above the D&D theoretical minimu of 3).

 

But either way, that's what he said. And it follows, deductively, from what he said that we won't be able to assign points in a non-viable way.

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.

First of all, you mean infer, not imply. And second, no, that's not obvious at all. If it were obvious, everyone would see it, and I certainly don't.

[Lephys]

Words have meaning.

 

It could also mean that we won't be allowed to assign points in such extreme ways - that viable scores will be mechanically enforced (much like how NWN2 had a minimum score that was well above the D&D theoretical minimu of 3).

Words have more than one simple meaning. And the key word there is "could."

 

But either way, that's what he said. And it follows, deductively, from what he said that we won't be able to assign points in a non-viable way.

It follows that we could be unable to assign points in a non-viable way. Deducing any "woulds" from that without acquiring clarification from the source (as people obviously know what their thought was when they chose their words, even if their words weren't specific enough to not misrepresent their idea) is useless.

 

First of all, you mean infer, not imply. And second, no, that's not obvious at all. If it were obvious, everyone would see it, and I certainly don't.

I did mean infer. Thank you for that correction. I didn't notice, while typing it, that my brain switched in the wrong word on me.

 

Also, if your definition of "obvious" held true, then blind people would know whether a room was lit.

 

And, if you've read all the other stuff he's said regarding character parameter viability (aka context), which is posted all over this forum, then yes, it would be come quite obvious specifically what he's getting at, and what he isn't getting at.

 

If you want to make a potent, physically-resilient Wizard, you can do so without becoming a Magikarp, like you would in most other RPGs. That's the ONLY reason he's even specifying the intent of the decision: to compare it to the things we're used to. What are we used to? Intentional efforts to build characters a certain way, only to discover that they're not actually very viable throughout the entirety of a playthrough. How will P:E be different? Such types of things won't be inherently nonviable.

 

Boosting Power instead of Accuracy (whatever the stattributes will actually be named) won't inherently make me a better or worse Wizard. It'll just affect how my Wizard... well, wizards. With the same stat, I cna make a more-potent-but-less-accurate Fighter, OR a more-potent-but-less-accurate Wizard. Doesn't mean I make the same character, regardless of class, and it doesn't mean that my character can't do what it is his class does because I picked "the wrong stat."

[Sacred_Path]

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!"

That has been settled as far as I'm concerned. Sawyer gave contradictory statements, and I'm willing to believe this was simply a poor choice of words. That happens when you release information in a piecemeal fashion - people will dissect your words.

[alanschu]

 

It's all about how they balance it. It could easyly be +1 damage per point when a different stat will give +50 hitpoints per point. Given that the whole reason to this system is that Sawyer hates dump stats, i can't imagine that he will create a system that you can pour all your points in a single or even two stats and win the game.

I guess we'll have to wait and see. To me, it seems like hes simply renaming D&D mechanics: Attack of Opportunity is now Disengagement Attack, Berserker is now whatever they are calling Barbarian rage, Weapons Specializations are now all rolled into a generic "Damage". Choosing a weapons specialization never before sacrificed other mechanics but I think you are right that these mechanics will be tweaked to punish players if they do not spend points in a Jack-of-all-trades kind of build. Adequate at everything, great at nothing.

 

 

Or it could just lend itself to a variety.  Jack of all trades are all relatively independent in that they don't need any party member to be effective.  But maybe you have a guy that you have dumped ALL of his points into damage.  But because of it, his chance to miss is high.  Buuut, you have a guy with high chance to hit, and as such it increases the likelihood of him hitting with a stun ability.  When creatures are stunned, people may get a significant bonus chance to hit, and as such in that situation the guy with the big hand can crush the stunned guy in a single hit.

 

Different, but not necessarily superior.

[tajerio]

 

Jack of all trades are all relatively independent in that they don't need any party member to be effective.  

 

 

This is one of the points that hasn't made sense to me throughout this discussion.  A lot of people want to have deeply specialized characters, and seem to have strong opposition to the jack of all trades concept.  But a lot of these people are the same people complaining about verisimilitude, and the lack thereof with the system they believe Josh has described.  Those two things don't really flow together.  If you want real verisimilitude, then either every adventurer has to be some kind of jack of all trades, or all adventurers are constantly in parties and never have to fend for themselves in adventure situations.  To my mind, people seem to be confusing "verisimilitude" with "the D&D paradigm," which is quite silly.  

[Sylvius the Mad]

It follows that we could be unable to assign points in a non-viable way. Deducing any "woulds" from that without acquiring clarification from the source (as people obviously know what their thought was when they chose their words, even if their words weren't specific enough to not misrepresent their idea) is useless.

That we don't know which specific thing he meant doesn't prevent us from knowing that he must have meant at least one of them.

 

If he's said that each character would be viable no matter how points were allocated, that would actually be good news. That would suggest that each character, regardless of class, could be built a variety of different ways and still be useful and effective.

 

But what he said was this:

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

What it really comes down to is what he means by "character concept". I would think that a concept is something like a combination of class and combat role. So, let's suppose a character that is a fighter archer. My take on Josh's statement is that there is no way to assign attributes to that character such that he will be non-viable.

 

And that strikes me as wrong. It should be possible to assign attributes such that the character won't be good at the thing he wants to do.

[Ignatius]

Josh is torturing me with all these hints and murky answers. I get what he's saying, but without specifics to relate to, he's only giving us half the equation here. So I read this stuff and it's like... uhhh yeah, sure that makes sense I guess. I really hope we hear something about all of this today. Then again, they might not even be close to nailing the system down, so... my agony could go on for a few more months. Arrrgh!!!

Edited July 23, 2013 by Ignatius

[Lephys]

That we don't know which specific thing he meant doesn't prevent us from knowing that he must have meant at least one of them.

 

If he's said that each character would be viable no matter how points were allocated, that would actually be good news. That would suggest that each character, regardless of class, could be built a variety of different ways and still be useful and effective.

 

But what he said was this:

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

What it really comes down to is what he means by "character concept". I would think that a concept is something like a combination of class and combat role. So, let's suppose a character that is a fighter archer. My take on Josh's statement is that there is no way to assign attributes to that character such that he will be non-viable.

 

And that strikes me as wrong. It should be possible to assign attributes such that the character won't be good at the thing he wants to do.

 

*facepalm*. Hahaha. Yes. All this time, Josh Sawyer has just been PRETENDING to not be insane, to lull you into a false sense of security.

 

Okay, hang on. You're absolutely right. We know one of two things:

 

A) You're misinterpreting his meaning, and, with that being so, he "should"ve chosen better words.

 

B) He wants you to be able to just put 1 point into Power, and 5,000 points into Wittiness, and you'll still be the hardest-hitting whatever-class-you-are in the entire game. All the attributes actually all do the exact same thing, no matter what. They quite literally serve no purpose.

 

Hmmm... you're correct. A is just plain ridiculous. There's a 99.9% chance it's B. Thanks for setting me straight.

[Sylvius the Mad]

A) You're misinterpreting his meaning, and, with that being so, he "should"ve chosen better words.

I'm not interpreting his meaning at all. I'm interpreting his words. His meaning is unknowable to any but him.

B) He wants you to be able to just put 1 point into Power, and 5,000 points into Wittiness, and you'll still be the hardest-hitting whatever-class-you-are in the entire game. All the attributes actually all do the exact same thing, no matter what. They quite literally serve no purpose.

Viable does not mean excellent. His remarks leave open the possibility that some concepts will be better served by some attribute distributions, but it does not allow that there exists any attribute distribution that will break any character concept.

[FlintlockJazz]

My official response to the issue of attributes is that currently we do not know enough yet to make a decision, and I refuse to immediately decry something without giving it a chance (unlike those who decried the item durability system).  Now, I like that he's striving for a system whereby you don't have dump stats and can build your character in different ways, for instance an intelligent fighter or strongman mage (anyone else get an Alex Strongarm image in their heads at that?) wherein the unconventional stat gives the class a bonus still.  What I fear is a Diablo or Torchlight 2 style system or one where you have attributes called 'Damage' and 'Accuracy'.  One of the main purposes of attributes for me is that they help define what kind of person your character is, for instance you can look at Minsc's stat line and immediately see that he's someone strong and tough but mentally deficient, whereas a character from DA:O I had no idea about since the stat lines would shoot up stupidly high from leveling.  I mean if a character ended up with strength 80 does that mean they were a weakling at level 1 when their strength was 20 and what's average?  I'm not a fan of increasing attributes to be honest since they usually lead to obscene min-maxing and confusing concepts of just what is average. 

 

Doing the attributes right is hard, which is why I really want to see what it is they are intending before commenting further, but I do recall that your attributes were mentioned as being the stats used to define your options in dialog, and that a low intelligence would give you 'dumb man' options instead, so I'm wondering how attributes like 'Damage' would accomplish this.  Maybe the 'attributes' Mr Sawyer was mentioning was actually 'secondary attributes' derived from the primary attributes maybe?  Maybe damage stat is derived from both the strength and the intelligence stat for instance, strength because it determines the strength of the blows naturally and intelligence to simulate the character working out the best place to target their blows for best effect?  Dexterity and Wits to determine accuracy?  Dunno, it's all theorycraft, will have to wait until they explain it better.

[Lephys]

I'm not interpreting his meaning at all. I'm interpreting his words. His meaning is unknowable to any but him.

And yet, what good is it to interpret words with no interest in meaning? What good are his words if they weren't spoken by the mind of Josh Sawyer, in relation to this game's development? If he makes a blatant typo, do you just shrug and insist that we must send his words to a forensics lab, or do you say "Hmm... you know, it's pretty likely that's a typo" and actually factor in the probability of his meaning, based on all the other stuff we know about this game, including direct quotes from himself. Not to mention all the other games he's made?

 

You act like we have no choice but to sit around analyzing a single sentence all day, and that supposing his meaning is somehow pointless. We can ask him his meaning (ask for clarification), and/or attempt to discern it ourselves. Anything else is pretty pointless, to be honest.

 

Viable does not mean excellent. His remarks leave open the possibility that some concepts will be better served by some attribute distributions, but it does not allow that there exists any attribute distribution that will break any character concept.

Viable means "adequately effective in some, unspecified manner." I don't understand what "viable" has to do with the ability to break a given character concept. He was addressing ALL character concepts, and the ability to meet them, if you so choose, via effort and guided intent. Not "Whatever you do with points, all things will still be possible!"

 

Obviously, if you want to make a character who's super accurate, and you put 1 point into accuracy, then that point allocation is no longer viable in conjunction with your specified intent of your character role.

 

This is absolutely no different from the DnD system. If you put a lot of points into Intelligence, then your character's viability was dependent more upon the benefits provided by Intelligence. You were viable in a given way, rather than a different way. But you weren't instantly viable for all roles, no matter what. The ONLY difference is, if you didn't put points into Intelligence, as a Wizard, you lost your viability, as you couldn't keep up with anything else in terms of spell level (which was pretty much the entire backbone of your whole class functionality framework). Whereas, now, if you don't put points into Intelligence (or whatever stat will be most comparable to that), you will simply SHIFT your viability to some other aspect of Wizardry, rather than focusing on the benefits provided by Intelligence.

 

Would someone PLEASE tell me where the problem lies? Could you like... show me a diagram? Maybe circle it in red? That would be lovely.

[alanschu]

 

 

What it really comes down to is what he means by "character concept". I would think that a concept is something like a combination of class and combat role. So, let's suppose a character that is a fighter archer. My take on Josh's statement is that there is no way to assign attributes to that character such that he will be non-viable.

And that strikes me as wrong. It should be possible to assign attributes such that the character won't be good at the thing he wants to do.

 

Character concept could be broken down further, such as "damage dealer."

 

I could probably come up with ways, using the D&D skills, that most of these would still work.  (this is a derivation from Josh's suggestions):

 

 

Fighter:

 

Strength: Straight up raw damage numbers

Dexterity: Critical hits, or attack speed, or accuracy

Constitution: This one is trickier, as it tends to feed into survivability.  Perhaps constitution could feed into a grappler type.  He can put holds or sustain abilities that can enhance damage in different ways

Intelligence: Skill with weapon, skills at combat, or also critical hits

Wisdom: You could probably use most for Intelligence here, but also maybe something like rate of XP gain.

Charisma: Okay, this one gets me for a damage dealer.  At best I could think of maybe, a first strike bonus from an unsuspecting opponent.  Charisma might not be the best for this.

 

I thought of this while I was typing, however.  With more thought I may be able to come up with better situations.  I don't see how this system wouldn't allow for some level of variety either, where the straight up bruisers are better for some people, but an intellect fighter has advantages in other circumstances.  Both work for dealing damage, with their own unique twists.

[Lephys]

Character concept could be broken down further, such as "damage dealer."

I think they're going further than that. Instead of saying "Is this character going to be dealing damage, or are they going to be not-dealing damage?", the question is now "HOW will this character deal damage, as opposed to this OTHER character? More frequently? Mostly with criticals (focusing on opponents with the greatest difference between their own defense and the character's accuracy)? Mostly against multiple targets (lower damage, but more instances of its application per-attack)? Etc.

 

That's the thing. Having high Power doesn't make you good. It makes you have high power. Having low Accuracy doesn't make you bad. It makes you have low Accuracy.

 

I'd say your class answers the "what does your character do?", and your stats would determine how you viably do it.

[alanschu]

Well, I think my example kinda breaks down that.  I didn't mean for it to be a dichotomy of "You do damage or you don't."  I gave several different breakdowns for how you could design different ways to do just damage.  There's different archetypes that you could use for a fighter as well.  Classic ones like "Tank" and so forth, but you can be creative here too.

 

I could see there being a few different types of archetypes for each class, coupled with different ways of fulfilling those types based upon your attribute distribution