On PE difficulty mechanics, objective xp and combat, stealth, sweet-talking

[Yonjuro]

 

 

That argument basically just leads to "I think Obsidian are idiots, and have no idea why I even backed this game, or why I ever thought they'd intelligently design anything, whatsoever." Because, that has nothing to do with what system they're using, but with your feelings on their competence.

 

 I think the argument really boils down to something more like 'the IE games weren't broken so why is Obsidian trying to fix them by doing something significantly different?'

 

True enough, but I was specifically referring to the "who's to say which kills/combats will grant XP and which ones won't?/ What if I HAVE to best something in combat merely to make any progress whatsoever in the game, but it doesn't get labeled as an objective?" argument. It's more an aspect of "the" argument, I suppose.

 

 Oh, I see. (Or, 'I have lost myself in your words but Boo thinks you're just ducky').

[Lephys]

Really? Can you supply some links?

 

Because Josh Sawyer says here:

 

People used it to great degenerate gameplay lengths in old Infinity Engine games to kill powerful enemies on the first round of combat.

 

Looks like degenerate gameplay to me. Obviously not having a go at Josh. Because the IE games did have faults which Obsidian are trying to correct.

 

If you're going to quote people, it helps to have some links to back you up or at the very least, quote them with what they say.

 

My bad. I've got the specifics wrong regarding the terms used. He still uses the word "gameplay", but... well, this is what I was referring to:

 

 

From a technical point of view, the term "degenerate" is used frequently in disciplines like technical writing and (I would imagine, though I am no expert) Information Technology. I've encountered the term a lot when talking/writing about systems, whether they are actual or conceptual.  To label a system as "degenerate" means it breaks down (degenerates) or fails to fulfill its stated design goals.  When you have a "degenerate interface" in a mobile application, for example, it means your interface is requiring people to compensate for your broken system because it was poorly designed.  

 

It is interesting that you mention this, though, because I often though that the people who were flipping their lids over the term were maybe misunderstanding it.

 

Yes, that is the intended meaning.  I've also explained the intended meaning previously.  I don't think I've ever used "degenerate" as a description of players, but of gameplay.  I don't believe players are ever at "fault" for using whatever tools designers provide for them, including features like save/reload or rest spamming.  It's the designers' responsibility to design systems and individual sub-systems that work well together and promote enjoyable gameplay.

 

BTW, in my own tabletop gaming scenarios, I've heard plenty of players (and DMs) deride other players for "abusing" clear rule loopholes.  I don't think this is helpful for anyone and, unless you're in a tournament environment, I don't know why any DM/GM wouldn't simply talk to the players about adjusting the rules for the long-term health of the game.  With PE, the rules we give to you are ours to write.  If a player "abuses" any rule we put in, we are the people to blame, not the players.  I.e, we, the designers, create degenerate gameplay opportunities.  Players simply recognize the opportunity and take advantage of it to win the game, which is usually one of their major goals.  But because those opportunities often become the de facto tactic or strategy for overcoming an obstacle, what could have been a dynamic element of gameplay becomes static -- generally undesirable.

 

Read the quote from decado to which he's responding, with the first words "out of his mouth" in response being "Yes, that is the intended meaning." Basically, word-emphasis aside, the point still stands.

 

For example, in that one-line quote you provided regarding using stuff "to great degenerate gameplay lengths in old Infinity Engine games to kill powerful enemies on the first round of combat," the problem isn't that the player actually used what they could to accomplish this. It's a problem with the game's design, simply because of the game's stated goals. The game is supposedly presenting the player with some immensely powerful, challenging foe, but then giving the player everything he needs to simply kill it in one hit, which contradicts the design.

 

It's like Acrobatics in the Elder Scrolls games. The intent/goal of the game's design is to have your skills progress through focused-but-purposeful use. And yet, you can just jump off of small cliffs for 10 hours straight, and BOOM! You're a master of acrobatics. That's not what the game wants you to be able to do, but then it provides the necessary tools, right there. All you have to do is jump around a lot.

 

Think of it like a murder mystery novel. A person might easily just flip through to the last page and learn who the killer is/the mystery's secret. But, if page 1 of the book just said "(Insert killer's name here) totally killed this guy," wouldn't you say that the book was designed in a way that conflicts with its own goal (to present the reader with an engrossing mystery)? Regardless of whether or not you LOVE to read murder mystery books in which the very first sentence of the book just tells you exactly what happened, they are no longer, by definition, "mysteries" if they do that.

 

Something can only be "degenerate" by design, in relation to the specific context of its own design goals. Nothing's degenerate just because. You're not a degenerate for liking to kill everything in sight and get XP for it. But, it's not in the interest of the game's design goals to make the death of all things an XP-worthy achievement. MOST deaths, sure. But not every single one in the whole game. Thus the distinction of objectives.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Lephys

[Stun]

For example, in that one-line quote you provided regarding using stuff "to great degenerate gameplay lengths in old Infinity Engine games to kill powerful enemies on the first round of combat," the problem isn't that the player actually used what they could to accomplish this. It's a problem with the game's design, simply because of the game's stated goals. The game is supposedly presenting the player with some immensely powerful, challenging foe, but then giving the player everything he needs to simply kill it in one hit, which contradicts the design.

Interestingly enough, Josh is STILL barking up the wrong tree here.

 

In his example, (Using disintegrate or finger of death to kill off a powerful foe in the first round, when this foe was not meant to go down in the first round) is NOT a flaw in the system design. It's a flaw in the encounter design. There was absolutely nothing stopping the devs from designing that powerful foe to be IMMUNE to all forms of death magic, thus making insta-kills impossible against this foe.

 

But hey, that's yet another example of an ambitious developer eager to fix things that aren't actually broken.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Stun

[Azmodan]

Stun, you said:

Nonsense. When exploring the wilderness, encountering a pack of the wilderness' inhabitants IS the story. Or an element of it. Why do you think Bioware put a bunch of named-bandit encounters in BG1's wilderness areas?

 

 

And this goes back to my argument that at what level are wandering monster encounters meaningless? i.e. In BG, you could go back as a high-level party (7 or 8 average) and re-harvest kills against wolves. Because that is the 2nd edition ruleset. In 3rd edition - the XP is no longer at a flat rate, but is relative to your party. I'm fine with the objective based approach, because it encourages the level designer to be more thorough in creating encounters and scripting additional approaches. A world that aims to be "realistic" is not Diablo - with a never-ending horde of monsters dropping lewtz.

 

The example of your party exploring the wilderness for exploration sake:

1) In a neighbouring village, the party meets a forester who informs of sighting of Ogres and other monsters and wild animals that have not been seen in a generation, at a nearby logging camp, thus placing the map marker for a new exploration node on your party's world map (you gain your initial objectives: uncommon monsters are on the prowl - resolve and secure area around logging camp)

2) When your party travels to the world map, they might have the following options:

   a) Wander around until they encounter an enemy (BG approach)

   b) The ranger or druid discovers animal tracks which reveal that the creatures making these are somehow "suspicious"

   c) The druid speaks to an animal which is concerned that the new arrivals are somehow unnatural

3) The party tracks down an enemy:

   a) the enemy in this wilderness encounter are agitated wolves, the ranger or druid decide to calm the animals down (create additional objectives)

   b) the enemy is a group of Ogres and they cannot be reasoned with. After defeating them, a skill or talent check reveals that they have been acting on the orders of an Ogre Mage (create additional objectives)

4) The party having found the location of the Ogre Mage defeat him

AND/OR

5) The party do not find any evidence of anything unusual

6) The forester is informed

7) If the party did not find foul play, the forester and villagers return to logging, a week later, they all get slaughtered. Party receives news of this and return to the wilderness area where they now encounter and defeat the Ogre Mage.

 

There are still XP rewards, its just how much XP is awarded, depends on whether your party simply killed some monsters, or went further and took an investigative approach.

 

My point, and the point of the people who argue in favour of PoE's advised approach, is that Obsidian will try to flesh out all encounters to be more than mere kill-grinding. Because while this was possible and tedious in BG, it could be abused (as soon as your mage got fireball at level 5, nothing stopped your party from revisiting areas for the express purpose of fireballing randomly spawned monster groups for XP).

Edited January 25, 2014 by Azmodan

[Silent Winter]

 

Interestingly enough, Josh is STILL barking up the wrong tree here.

 

In his example, (Using disintegrate or finger of death to kill off a powerful foe in the first round, when this foe was not meant to go down in the first round) is NOT a flaw in the system design. It's a flaw in the encounter design. There was absolutely nothing stopping the devs from designing that powerful foe to be IMMUNE to all forms of death magic, thus making insta-kills impossible against this foe.

 

But hey, that's yet another example of an ambitious developer eager to fix things that aren't actually broken.

 

But then we'd just lay down 7 or 8 spike-traps to kill demogorgon or amellisan.  (AFAIK the damage type from those is non-magical, but hits any enemy that needs a +5 weapon to hit, and the same as hitting someone with a melee weapon).  So yeah, I agree, designing encounters well is important.  You need to consider the tools available to the player and think about cheesy ways to exploit them.  Then consider how you can still have a meaningful encounter that doesn't just stop the player from using the skills they've gained.

In the example he gave - the fault was with the spell - it was all or nothing on a dice-roll - reload and try again.  He praised the 3rd Ed equivalent - high damage unless saved, then lower-damage.  An improvement I agree with.

 

None of which is about whether per-kill xp is better than objective xp.  If you simply remove per-kill xp from BG then it'll be bad.  But if it were designed up front with objective xp in mind, then it'd be fine.

BG quest north of farm north of Friendly Arm - go kill 20 zombies.  So you kill 20 zombies and get xp for each kill then get xp when returning to quest-giver.  Was anyone at that point going to quit after 19 zombies?

If you design something to be objective only then yes, you won't get xp for those individual kills...but I agree with the design goals that this is actually better.

 

You can argue that you should get combat experience for engaging in combat - but in BG, my thief takes part in combat then gets better at backstabbing and also gets to choose whether he gets better at lock-picking or pick-pocketing...from combat.  It's all abstract in the end.  So unless we want a system that says "Use sword swing 100 times to improve sword skill" and "use 'talk' 100 times to improve talk skill" (which I've played in other games and was a boring, stupid, grind) then the objective xp system is better.

 

On another note - a reason to engage in combat is to get better at combat.  When I started BG, I was rubbish at combat.  Many fights later, I was better.  The player gets experience even if they don't get 'xp'.  On the 5th playthrough, I don't need to, but I still need to chase down those gibberlings for the xp.  I prefer a system that doesn't have this drawback.  One that rewards doing stuff by whatever means your team has at their disposal - often this will be combat, but now there are valid alternatives to fighting sometimes.

 

If you only engage in combat to see 'xp' go up then maybe RPg isn't your genre.  (maybe Jrpg?)

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

 

From a technical point of view, the term "degenerate" is used frequently in disciplines like technical writing and (I would imagine, though I am no expert) Information Technology. I've encountered the term a lot when talking/writing about systems, whether they are actual or conceptual.  To label a system as "degenerate" means it breaks down (degenerates) or fails to fulfill its stated design goals.  When you have a "degenerate interface" in a mobile application, for example, it means your interface is requiring people to compensate for your broken system because it was poorly designed.  

 

It is interesting that you mention this, though, because I often though that the people who were flipping their lids over the term were maybe misunderstanding it.

 

Yes, that is the intended meaning.  I've also explained the intended meaning previously.  I don't think I've ever used "degenerate" as a description of players, but of gameplay.  I don't believe players are ever at "fault" for using whatever tools designers provide for them, including features like save/reload or rest spamming.  It's the designers' responsibility to design systems and individual sub-systems that work well together and promote enjoyable gameplay.

 

BTW, in my own tabletop gaming scenarios, I've heard plenty of players (and DMs) deride other players for "abusing" clear rule loopholes.  I don't think this is helpful for anyone and, unless you're in a tournament environment, I don't know why any DM/GM wouldn't simply talk to the players about adjusting the rules for the long-term health of the game.  With PE, the rules we give to you are ours to write.  If a player "abuses" any rule we put in, we are the people to blame, not the players.  I.e, we, the designers, create degenerate gameplay opportunities.  Players simply recognize the opportunity and take advantage of it to win the game, which is usually one of their major goals.  But because those opportunities often become the de facto tactic or strategy for overcoming an obstacle, what could have been a dynamic element of gameplay becomes static -- generally undesirable.

 

Read the quote from decado to which he's responding, with the first words "out of his mouth" in response being "Yes, that is the intended meaning." Basically, word-emphasis aside, the point still stands.

 

 

Degenerate gameplay will always be in games like this and there will be players who use it. I don't see how Josh can get rid of it totally. I'd really like to see how they eliminate degenerate gameplay opportunities in PoE. If there are opportunities, then it appears Josh is saying, the dev's including himself are to blame.

 

 

For example, in that one-line quote you provided regarding using stuff "to great degenerate gameplay lengths in old Infinity Engine games to kill powerful enemies on the first round of combat," the problem isn't that the player actually used what they could to accomplish this. It's a problem with the game's design, simply because of the game's stated goals. The game is supposedly presenting the player with some immensely powerful, challenging foe, but then giving the player everything he needs to simply kill it in one hit, which contradicts the design.

 

It doesn't contradict the design. On one of my very first play throughs of BG2 (possibly my first play through), I used Jaheira to use the spell Harm on the Shadow Dragon and reduce him to 1 hp. An incredibly low chance of success and it worked. If designers are going to put a powerful spell like Harm in the game, then designers can't cry foul if someone uses it against a boss. If they don't want players to reduce a boss to 1 hp, then they should put safe guards in place. eg. Immune to certain spells. Otherwise, it's working as intended. It's just another way to get past an obstacle, albeit a very low chance of success and the stars have to align for it to succeed. And if you did it on your first attempt, how do you know it's degenerate gameplay? You don't.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Silent Winter]

Added numbers to the quote and snipped for brevity:

 

1) Degenerate gameplay will always be in games like this and there will be players who use it. I don't see how Josh can get rid of it totally. I'd really like to see how they eliminate degenerate gameplay opportunities in PoE. If there are opportunities, then it appears Josh is saying, the dev's including himself are to blame.

 

2) It doesn't contradict the design. On one of my very first play throughs of BG2 (possibly my first play through), I used Jaheira to use the spell Harm on the Shadow Dragon and reduce him to 1 hp. An incredibly low chance of success and it worked. If designers are going to put a powerful spell like Harm in the game, then designers can't cry foul if someone uses it against a boss. If they don't want players to reduce a boss to 1 hp, then they should put safe guards in place. eg. Immune to certain spells. Otherwise, it's working as intended. It's just another way to get past an obstacle, albeit a very low chance of success and the stars have to align for it to succeed. And if you did it on your first attempt, how do you know it's degenerate gameplay? You don't.

1)Yes, that's what Josh's saying - if there's degenerate gameplay, the devs are to blame.  I don't think he can totally remove opportunities for some cheesy exploits, but that doesn't mean he should ignore things that he can see and not try to fix them.  Encounters need to be designed with the system in mind, and the system as a whole needs to be designed well.

2) Exactly - you don't know it's degenerate, it's just a valid tactic - so the problem lies not with the players but with the designers (as was Josh's point, I believe).  D&D was designed around no-reload, table-top gaming with a DM.  Want to try your luck with Harm - go ahead, maybe you'll get lucky this time.  But in a crpg, it's 'missed with your powerful spell' - reload.

(Not that I would, but I think the temptation is strong for many people).

If there were a way to fix the RNG on spells (as has been suggested previously for random-loot chests) then that'd solve that problem.  Your luck wouldn't change with a reload.  Of course, if you die in the fight and *have* to reload, you'd know not to bother with Harm this fight.

I think Josh was saying that he'd rather not have "all or nothing" spells but have "powerful" spells that might be saved against for reduced (but not zero) damage.  Since this makes for a more balanced encounter.

[teknoman2]

here's how a hypothetical situation would work with kill xp

1 you meet a man who hides from a bounty hunter and agree to help him

2 you find the bounty hunter and talk him out of hunting the man and get 1000xp

3 you then kill the bounty hunter and get 500xp

4 you return to the man and say the job is done and get 1000xp for the quest

5 then you kill him and get 100xp

6 then you take his head to the crime boss posting the bounty and get another 1000xp

7 then you kill him too and all his guards for 1500xp without any penalties since he is a criminal

doing it in any other way would be less rewarding, hence your choices on how to handle it are minimized

[Hiro Protagonist II]

1)Yes, that's what Josh's saying - if there's degenerate gameplay, the devs are to blame.  I don't think he can totally remove opportunities for some cheesy exploits, but that doesn't mean he should ignore things that he can see and not try to fix them.  Encounters need to be designed with the system in mind, and the system as a whole needs to be designed well.

 

 success and the stars have to align for it to succeed. And if you did it on your first attempt, how do you know it's degenerate gameplay? You don't.

 

2) Exactly - you don't know it's degenerate, it's just a valid tactic - so the problem lies not with the players but with the designers (as was Josh's point, I believe).  D&D was designed around no-reload, table-top gaming with a DM.  Want to try your luck with Harm - go ahead, maybe you'll get lucky this time.  But in a crpg, it's 'missed with your powerful spell' - reload.

(Not that I would, but I think the temptation is strong for many people).

If there were a way to fix the RNG on spells (as has been suggested previously for random-loot chests) then that'd solve that problem.  Your luck wouldn't change with a reload.  Of course, if you die in the fight and *have* to reload, you'd know not to bother with Harm this fight.

I think Josh was saying that he'd rather not have "all or nothing" spells but have "powerful" spells that might be saved against for reduced (but not zero) damage.  Since this makes for a more balanced encounter.

 

1) Some people might call them cheesy exploits. I call it thinking out of the box.

 

2) I wouldn't reload with Harm in BG2. In fact, I stopped using it after my second or third play through many years ago. There's too many variables to pull it off. Also, D&D pnp isn't balanced either. And your example is not entirely true. You can do a 'type' of reload with Heroic Effort for Humans. In fact, I would say the Heroic Effort power is quite over powering. I only know because our GM decided to have all of us players choose Human Characters because our original characters were OP. I had a Halfling Rogue. What this did was make us optimise our characters again and we found Heroic Effort was a god send. eg. Attacks enemy with daily. Rolls dice. miss. Heroic Effort, Hit.

 

If I was to play d&d pnp with a rogue again, I would definitely use a human. At level 3, I had a +14 to hit with sneak attack which I was able to do every round and an AC of 20. They're just as every bit as powerful as Halfling Rogues and you have Heroic Effort to do a 'type' of reload with a +4 to your attack roll.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Silent Winter]

1) Some people might call them cheesy exploits. I call it thinking out of the box.

 

2) Heroic Effort

 

1) That's why I think it's not really possible for Josh&Co to completely remove them - there are always going to be those who think in ways the designers never did (I have a nasty habit of finding bugs in games (design bugs, not just random code bugs) by trying things I shouldnt )

2) Ok, I've never really played D&D tabletop so I didn't know about that - sounds OP to me too.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Ok, I've never really played D&D tabletop so I didn't know about that - sounds OP to me too.

 

 

It is and it isn't. Most people don't play humans because it's better to use other races for classes. If you play a Rogue, you go Halfling. It's a no brainer because of the racial benefits (powers) they get for rogues that Humans don't. Similar with other builds. Certain races / classes are quite OP compared to their human builds. But what we found out was the human builds have the Heroic effort power that you can take (it's optional to take it) and we found it was an absolute must.

 

Many times you roll and it was a good roll and you missed. It was hard not to metagame and think I must have just missed him and then throw down your Heroic Effort and it becomes a hit.  You only had one heroic effort per encounter and after the encounter, you got it back straight away. No resting required. So you always used it every encounter because you know you would get it back. But as I said, there were better races to play than Humans because those other races were usually more powerful.

[Stun]

Hey Azmodan, I went ahead and placed the appropriate quote tags on your post so that they'd make more sense. No need to thank me.

 

Nonsense. When exploring the wilderness, encountering a pack of the wilderness' inhabitants IS the story. Or an element of it. Why do you think Bioware put a bunch of named-bandit encounters in BG1's wilderness areas?

 And this goes back to my argument that at what level are wandering monster encounters meaningless?

 

No it doesn't. It has nothing to do with level disparities. There's a completely *different* case that can be made for an ECL system, which Obsidian isn't using in POE. My example, which you called a "straw man", wasn't about that. It was about dealing with inhabitants of an area that you are exploring for the first time.

 

So yeah, lets stick with that scenario.

 

 

 

The example of your party exploring the wilderness for exploration sake:

1) In a neighbouring village, the party meets a forester who informs of sighting of Ogres and other monsters and wild animals that have not been seen in a generation, at a nearby logging camp, thus placing the map marker for a new exploration node on your party's world map (you gain your initial objectives: uncommon monsters are on the prowl - resolve and secure area around logging camp)

Ok, that's fine. Does it have to be that way though? Does every wilderness encounter have to come packaged with a warner, a narrator, a tour guide, or a quest giver eager to mark your map? Is the system being proposed here so rigid that it does not allow basic exploration?

 

2) When your party travels to the world map, they might have the following options:

   a) Wander around until they encounter an enemy (BG approach)

   b) The ranger or druid discovers animal tracks which reveal that the creatures making these are somehow "suspicious"

   c) The druid speaks to an animal which is concerned that the new arrivals are somehow unnatural

3) The party tracks down an enemy:

   a) the enemy in this wilderness encounter are agitated wolves, the ranger or druid decide to calm the animals down (create additional objectives)

   b) the enemy is a group of Ogres and they cannot be reasoned with. After defeating them, a skill or talent check reveals that they have been acting on the orders of an Ogre Mage (create additional objectives)

4) The party having found the location of the Ogre Mage defeat him

AND/OR

5) The party do not find any evidence of anything unusual

6) The forester is informed

7) If the party did not find foul play, the forester and villagers return to logging, a week later, they all get slaughtered. Party receives news of this and return to the wilderness area where they now encounter and defeat the Ogre Mage.

 

There are still XP rewards, its just how much XP is awarded, depends on whether your party simply killed some monsters, or went further and took an investigative approach.

But from your examples, the party's not getting XP for killing the ogres, the party is getting XP for employing a variety of of non-combat skills.

 

My point, and the point of the people who argue in favour of PoE's advised approach, is that Obsidian will try to flesh out all encounters to be more than mere kill-grinding.

Put a lid on the Hyperbole already. Discovering an isolated, hostile pack of Ogres in the forest and killing them does not constitute "Kill grinding".

 

 

Because while this was possible and tedious in BG

You're stating a minority opinion as fact. Those named mercenary/bandit party encounters were one of the things that made BG1 so fun. Edited January 25, 2014 by Stun

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

It[']s about dealing with inhabitants of an area that you are exploring for the first time.

 

[A] Does every wilderness encounter have to come packaged with a warner, a narrator, a tour guide, or a quest giver eager to mark your map? Is the system being proposed here so rigid that it does not allow basic exploration?

 

Discovering an isolated, hostile pack of Ogres in the forest and killing them does not constitute "Kill grinding".

 

[C] Those named mercenary/bandit party encounters were one of the things that made BG1 so fun.

 

A) This concern is quite valid, and it's something I'd like to hear more about from Josh & Co. Personally, I really want a game where I can move about and explore as freely as possible (even if there are some linear maps sometimes or whatever). If I happen to trigger a quest, that's fine, but if I'm not that should be perfectly fine too.

B) Indeed. That's a classic RPG encounter. And if you survive it, I really count on that amounting to what Tim Cain call an "accomplishment" and that we get some kind of objective xp for it. This should apply to all situations as this one described, even if you kill them each and every time. That's up to the player to decide.

C) I loved those encounters. Unfortunately, later in NWN 2, they were nearly non-existent, and things didn't get better with that mock competitor party stalking your own all the way into your Knight Captain Keep. Oh, how I wanted to eradicate that party!

Edited January 25, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Neroist]

Save or die spells really set apart RPGs for me. I find a lot of games generic and stale without them. I usally play melees (Rogues and Paladins). But having SoD (save or die) spells helps with character planing and counterspelling. It adds a lot of tactical spice to the game. A big bad should have death ward or a deathblock item on if the dev doesn't want an instant kill on it. As for disintegrate, spell manltes or item with a disintegrate absorption chance.

SoDs in D&D stop people from min/maxing as well. Maybe leaving your WIS at 8(-1) isn't such a good idea on your fighter/barb? Time take alittle off that maxed out STR, and think about your character.

 

I like to role play in my games. I find in D&D games playing a Paladin is awesome. I know that killing this NPC will get me lewtz and XP. But following the role and playing the part, will reward me with immersion! Helps bring me into this fantastic fantasy world. When playing Baldur's Gate, I keep a d20 with me. To see if my PC paladin notices my thief rummaging through peoples things. It makes it harder to play, but the story that happens out of Role Playing is awesome.

There needs to be some balance tho. Like a Paladin may not get all the goodies from going through peoples things or doing lawful acts. But once you get the Divine Avenger or any other divine relic, it really pays off.

[Lephys]

Interestingly enough, Josh is STILL barking up the wrong tree here.

 

In his example, (Using disintegrate or finger of death to kill off a powerful foe in the first round, when this foe was not meant to go down in the first round) is NOT a flaw in the system design. It's a flaw in the encounter design. There was absolutely nothing stopping the devs from designing that powerful foe to be IMMUNE to all forms of death magic, thus making insta-kills impossible against this foe.

Could you provide a quote in which someone is specifying the problem being with system design, in particular, as opposed to encounter design? Because, all I said (and all I believe Josh said) is that the fault lies with the game's design, which encompasses both systems AND encounters.

 

Basically, it's the game's fault, if that foe was easily killable when it wasn't supposed to be. Do you agree? Because you seem to, what with no actual response suggesting otherwise (your only qualm was the distinction between "system" and "encounter" design being at fault). So, I just wanted to make sure, instead of assuming such.

 

Also, just out of curiosity (mini-tangent), in regard to making the foe completely immune to Finger of Death, would it not be more prudent to simply implement a mitigation of Death Magic for that foe? Maybe you have to hit him 8 times with it to kill him or something? Thus, it wouldn't be rendered completely useless, but it would take some doing to actually use it to kill him. This would accomplish the same thing (preventing a designed-to-be-tough-to-kill foe from being one-shotted), while still offering the player the opportunity to utilize his death magic that the game told him was a totally valuable choice, if he REALLY puts the effort in. (Or maybe you'd have to channel it at the tough foe for like 13 seconds... *shrug*).

 

Just curious, one player to another.

[Lephys]

Degenerate gameplay will always be in games like this and there will be players who use it. I don't see how Josh can get rid of it totally. I'd really like to see how they eliminate degenerate gameplay opportunities in PoE. If there are opportunities, then it appears Josh is saying, the dev's including himself are to blame.

Could you perhaps provide a quote in which Josh states that it is his sole goal in life to specifically eliminate ALL possibility of "degenerate gameplay" from a game? I'm not saying he's never said that, but I've never read it, if he did. Seems to me his stance is more like "When possible, it should be avoided." Kind of like human injuries. Obviously, any given person is eventually going to stub their toe, or get cut by something, etc. You can't just remove the possibility for injury from the world. But it's clearly prudent to not design a living room with furnishings made out of swords, because that would just lead to a bunch of unnecessary injury.

 

 

It doesn't contradict the design.

 

I'm afraid it does.

 

If designers are going to put a powerful spell like Harm in the game, then designers can't cry foul if someone uses it against a boss. If they don't want players to reduce a boss to 1 hp, then they should put safe guards in place. eg. Immune to certain spells. Otherwise, it's working as intended.

Exactly. The developers intend for that dragon to not be easily slain, but then they also intend for the spell "Harm" to be able to make anything easily killable. If that's not a contradiction, I'd very much like to know how. That's like not wanting anyone to enter your home, but leaving your front door open with a big neon sign that says "Enter my home, please!" That would be a stupid thing to do in the context of the goal being not having people enter your home. Just as Harming the dragon to 1HP is bad in the context of the dragon being meant to be difficult to kill.

 

You're right that it's not the player's fault, and that's exactly the point. The devs didn't want that, but allowed it in their design where they could've easily prevented it.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Lephys

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I don't think save or die would work with PoE's mechanics, as all offensive attacks will either miss, graze, hit, or critical. There could be a critical causes death ability, but no all or nothing spells.

 

Also, no spells like that cheese Imprisonment. Instant KO without save or spell resistance that can only be reversed by a 9th level spell is pretty **** design.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Could you perhaps provide a quote in which Josh states that it is his sole goal in life to specifically eliminate ALL possibility of "degenerate gameplay" from a game? I'm not saying he's never said that, but I've never read it, if he did. Seems to me his stance is more like "When possible, it should be avoided." Kind of like human injuries. Obviously, any given person is eventually going to stub their toe, or get cut by something, etc. You can't just remove the possibility for injury from the world. But it's clearly prudent to not design a living room with furnishings made out of swords, because that would just lead to a bunch of unnecessary injury. 

 

 

I never said it was his sole goal in life. Nice straw man argument. Could you perhaps stop with the straw man arguments? And another irrelevant over the top analogy which has nothing to do with computer games.

 

 

I'm afraid it does.

 

No it doesn't. It's working as intended.

 

 

 

Exactly. The developers intend for that dragon to not be easily slain, but then they also intend for the spell "Harm" to be able to make anything easily killable. If that's not a contradiction, I'd very much like to know how. That's like not wanting anyone to enter your home, but leaving your front door open with a big neon sign that says "Enter my home, please!" That would be a stupid thing to do in the context of the goal being not having people enter your home. Just as Harming the dragon to 1HP is bad in the context of the dragon being meant to be difficult to kill.

 

You're right that it's not the player's fault, and that's exactly the point. The devs didn't want that, but allowed it in their design where they could've easily prevented it.

 

 

The fact that Harm is incredibly hard to pull off makes using the spell against a dragon an unviable option. I have no idea what the odds are but you wouldn't waste your time doing it because it has a very low chance of success. Which is why I never do it anymore. Not because it's a cheesy option which I don't think it is, because it's an option given to the players, instead it's difficult to pull off. It is not easily killable with Harm and I'm not the sort of person that reloads well into the night to pull off that spell. I'd rather move on with the game than try and spend hours pulling that off. There is no contradiction even if you want to believe it.

 

And if you're going to use analogies than at least use some logic. Your house analogy makes no sense. If you're going to use an analogy like that then a similar analogy would be having the Dragon with no defences at all (house door left open), with a big neon sign that says 'use Harm on me because it works all the time' (entering the house with door open works all the time). The FACT is Harm doesn't work against the dragon unless you have a lot of variables in place. If one of those variables isn't in place, it doesn't work.

 

BS with the dev's not wanting that. The dev's obviously wanted different ways of overcoming obstacles. Harm is an option to get past some of those obstacles. If you're foolhardy to try it and succeed then great, then it would be an option for them to put it in and the players to try it, albeit with a low success rate. The fact that the dev's made it an option with an incredibly low success rate makes it an allowable option by them. Are you suggesting the dev's only wanted you to use Harm against low level enemies and not all enemies in the game? What a load of BS.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Lephys]

I never said it was his sole goal in life. Nice straw man argument. Could you perhaps stop with the straw man arguments? And another irrelevant over the top analogy which has nothing to do with computer games.

Fair enough. Strike the word "sole" and the words "in life," and the question stands. I shouldn't have posed the question in an exaggerated manner, as it caused confusion. If you would be so kind, please provide a quote from him in which he clearly states that the main priority of his design process is to ensure that no degenerate gameplay exists, ever. Because, he's obviously fine with the fact that the ability to save anywhere allows save-scumming, but still opts for a save-anywhere system.

 

No it doesn't. It's working as intended.

I fear you have mistaken the definition of "intended." I distinctly declared the condition of the developers not wanting the dragon to be killed in one hit (not counting the application of the Harm spell as a "hit" -- I guess I should just say "damaging hit" to be most precise), it isn't functioning as intended. You can't intend for your game to have a big bad boss fight that's intended to be difficult (aka requiring of much effort on the player's part) to overcome, AND simultaneously intend for the player to be able to easily dispatch of that foe because of a mere dice roll (which doesn't = difficulty, because if the dice roll is good, you still simply clicked a single ability button and selected a target). You said it yourself; if they didn't want the player to be able to Harm the dragon, they shouldn't have allowed it. That's the whole point. The fact that they allowed it just means that they did it wrong, not that they wanted you to kill the dragon in 1 hit.

 

Also, the analogy makes perfect sense. It doesn't have anything to do with video games, you're quite correct. It has to do with intention, and how you can't intend 2 binary opposites at the same time. Which, in turn, has to do with video game design, for video game designers have intentions.

 

Really, if you weren't being so stubborn and jumping at the merest opportunity to have a go at me before you even apply a few ounces of thought to the things I'm saying, you could make these connections instead of assuming they don't exist, and we'd both be saved the time of my having to explain every single thing I say.

 

The fact that Harm is incredibly hard to pull off makes using the spell against a dragon an unviable option.

Nope. That's the thing about chance. If you do 100 damage with your sword, but the dragon has 99 armor, then sword-attacking it is rendered a nonviable option. But, a spell like Harm is governed by chance. Thus, the low chance renders it a probably nonviable option, but still possibly an INCREDIBLY viable option. One player could, on his first try, take the Dragon down to 1HP. That's WAY more effective than anything else you can do.

 

Harm isn't "hard" to pull off. It's completely beyond the scope of your effort to pull off. No decision you actively make influences its likelihood to be more effective as opposed to not-at-all effective.

 

Besides, you don't just get ONE use of Harm, right? You can prep multiples of it, correct? And what are you going to do if you try to fight the dragon that way, but fail? Die. And unless you're playing on Iron Man mode, what are you going to do next? Reload and retry. That's not even save-scumming. That's simply continuing because of a Game Over situation. Guess what happens when you reload? You get more usages of Harm to try against the dragon again! 8D

 

No, it's not wrong of the player to use Harm in that manner. It's the game's fault for making it a statistically good idea. It's turning tactical combat into gambling, even against a foe that's supposed to require the most effort from the player, not the most luck.

 

Anywho, that's starting to get off on a tangent about design, itself. The important point you were missing was that, IF, in your design, something's supposed to be a tough fight, and you put something in the game that allows it to be a ridiculously easy fight, then you've counteracted your own design, and you can't blame the player for not going out of his way to ensure it remains a tough fight (by, say... refraining from using Harm.)

[Stun]

Could you provide a quote in which someone is specifying the problem being with system design, in particular, as opposed to encounter design?

Oh! Sure. Sorry. Here you go.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/57754-josh-sawyer-at-gdc-europe-2011/page-2?do=findComment&comment=1139527

 

It's in the same post that Hiro linked us to a page ago, which started this discussion about insta-kills. Josh blames the save or Die System. He doesn't blame The faulty encounter design at all.

 

Basically, it's the game's fault, if that foe was easily killable when it wasn't supposed to be. Do you agree?

LOL no, not exactly. It's just faulty encounter design. To condemn the entire game because one of its boss encounters turned out to be too easy to kill is silly. Way too broad of an accusation. That's like having a delicious 7 course feast at a fancy restaurant, and everything looks and tastes great, but then you notice that the waitress gave you a dirty napkin, so the next day you tell everyone that the entire dining experience was bad.

 

Also, just out of curiosity (mini-tangent), in regard to making the foe completely immune to Finger of Death, would it not be more prudent to simply implement a mitigation of Death Magic for that foe?

Isn't that exactly what you're doing when you give someone immunity to death Magic?

 

Maybe you have to hit him 8 times with it to kill him or something?

What? Nah... Why violate the already established rule system, and the already established spell system just for the sake of one unique foe? Why not, instead, just adjust that foe's defenses?

 

But for what it's worth, one of the IE games (BG2) DOES, in fact adopt a variation of what you're suggesting. Some of the exceptionally powerful mages you encounter in BG2 put up a Spell Trap. It's a 9th level Buff that absorbs up to 30 levels of spells directed at the caster. Thus, if a mage puts up a spell trap, your party's Finger of death will automatically fail the first 4 times it is cast at that mage.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Stun

[Stun]

 

The fact that Harm is incredibly hard to pull off makes using the spell against a dragon an unviable option.

Nope. That's the thing about chance.

 

Harm isn't a luck-based spell. Nor is it a Save or Die.

 

In the IE games, Harm requires that your Cleric score a melee hit. Then if he/she succeeds, it brings the victim down to 1 hp. It is then the victim's turn. Typically, that victim (especially if it's a dragon) has no problems healing himself right back up. In the meantime, your cleric is in melee range, and since clerics only get 1 attack per round, they can do nothing at that point but wait until they can cast another spell, or wait until they can swing their hammers.

 

I never use Harm unless I'm playing a multi-class Fighter-Cleric. Harm is truly powerful in the hands of one of those, since fighters are masters in melee. But, a multi-classed Fighter-Cleric won't be getting Harm until much later in the game. And by then it gets overshadowed by a lot of the stuff the rest of your party can fire off.

 

If you do 100 damage with your sword, but the dragon has 99 armor, then sword-attacking it is rendered a nonviable option. But, a spell like Harm is governed by chance. Thus, the low chance renders it a probably nonviable option, but still possibly an INCREDIBLY viable option. One player could, on his first try, take the Dragon down to 1HP. That's WAY more effective than anything else you can do.

<sigh> And here we go again. Me and you have had this retarded discussion before, yes? Lephys, You cannot render a judgment on Magic by comparing it with a fighter's sword swings. Magic is supernatural. It's SUPPOSED to be more powerful due to the laundry list of limitations placed on it.

 

Lets run it down again, homie.

 

They gave Harm a more powerful effect than a +1 sword. Why? Because:

 

1) The cleric is limited to how many times he can cast it per day.

2) It is subject to an enemy's magic resistance <ahem. Dragons have magic resistance>

3) Like any spell, it can be interrupted, and when it is, the spell is wasted.

4) If the Cleric misses, the spell is wasted.

5) If the Cleric is Silenced, he cannot cast it.

6) The cleric doesn't even get to use it until he's at least 12th level.

 

Additionally, all the other rules governing magic apply. if the cleric is deafened or blinded or poisoned, casting failure is likely.

 

^swords do not receive any of these handicaps, and that is why Harm (and many other spells) are allowed to have such spectacular effects, while sword swings don't.

Edited January 26, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

Oh! Sure. Sorry. Here you go.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/57754-josh-sawyer-at-gdc-europe-2011/page-2?do=findComment&comment=1139527

 

It's in the same post that Hiro linked us to a page ago, which started this discussion about insta-kills. Josh blames the save or Die System. He doesn't blame The faulty encounter design at all.

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to. We're talking about the exact same thing. All your arguing about is whether or not it's technically part of the system, or the encounter.

 

If the system says "this spell works differently against Foe X," then they make an encounter that includes foe X, would that not result in that ability not making that particular encounter easy? An encounter is simply a scenario, populated by entities that behave according to the system. So, if you really want to get technical, it would be the system's fault, and not the encounter's, because the encounter is governed by the system. BUT, I don't really care how technical we get. The important point is still the same, regardless what word we use to blame some part of the game that's at fault: The game is at fault.

 

LOL no, not exactly. It's just faulty encounter design. To condemn the entire game because one of its boss encounters turned out to be too easy to kill is silly. Way too broad of an accusation.

It is, indeed, which is why I'm glad it's one I did not make. Guess what encounter design is a part of? That's right, a game. The game is at fault? Why? Because of (insert more specific part of the game, here). If I tell you I'm injured, are you going to LOL at me and tell me "Not exactly! Just your LEG is injured! Man, you thought your ENTIRE SELF had sustained an injury? LOLOLOL!!!"?

 

The frightening thing is... probably.

 

Well, that's exactly what you're doing when you give someone immunity to death Magic.

Right. Well mostly. I mean, it is mitigation. It's complete, nullifying mitigation, though. I wasn't arguing against that fact. I merely presented an alternative that allows for more dynamic, non-binary mitigation, and asking if that would still achieve the same desired affect (of preventing what is to be intended as a difficult fight from being turned into a not-at-all-difficult fight).

 

What? Nah... Why violate the already established rule system, and the already established spell system just for the sake of one unique foe? Why not, instead, just adjust that foe's defenses?

Because all that does is move around the threshold between something and nothing. The problem isn't that the spell instantly kills, but that it instantly kills something that you don't want to be instantly killable. I don't understand the difference between violating the already-established rule system, and simply having established a slightly different rule system in the first place. They didn't discover it on some tablets lost to time, dug up in the Garden of Eden. They discussed things, just like we're doing here, then decided on what to go with, because of reasons.

 

But for what it's worth, one of the IE games (BG2) DOES, in fact adopt a variation of what you're suggesting. Some of the exceptionally powerful mages you encounter in BG2 put up a Spell Trap. It's a 9th level Buff that absorbs up to 30 levels of spells directed at the caster. Thus, if a mage puts up a spell trap, your party's Finger of death will automatically fail the first 4 times it is cast at that mage.

See, that's a pretty cool idea, actually. Because, you still CAN get away with Deathing some big baddie in a big fight, but it's still not just a matter of chance. There's no chance that your spell will just bypass that trap, right? Thus, you've set the threshold in place, and only player effort (to survive that long, etc.) can allow you to actually reach that threshold.

 

I'm not saying that's THE end-all-be-all perfect method of doing things. I'm just saying that it objectively seems to work a lot better than just "this spell no longer EVER does ANYTHING against this foe" or "there's a really tiny chance that this'll work, so that's supposed to make things 'harder,' even though it could very well still happen on your first try."

[Lephys]

Harm isn't a luck-based spell. Nor is it a Save or Die.

I appreciate the info. I didn't have specifics. Even so...

 

In the IE games, Harm requires that your Cleric score a melee hit.

... which is luck-based. A die-roll determines whether or not you deal [Target's HP -1] damage to a foe or not. Which means, the tougher the opponent is, the more effective the spell. Which means, the more HP something has, the greater the reason you have to try to use it.

 

If the goal of the fight is to kill a big scary dragon, and ANY of your attacks could possibly miss it (except maybe stuff like Magic Missile... although it might could resist those? I don't know enough specific D&D trivia off the top of my head to know for sure... anywho), would you rather possibly hit it for 20 or 50 while also possibly missing (or it resisting/saving, etc.), or would you rather possibly hit it for all-its-health-minus-1 damage?

 

It'd be one thing if all your other, lesser attacks were guaranteed, but that one was chance. But, that isn't the case.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Fair enough. Strike the word "sole" and the words "in life," and the question stands. I shouldn't have posed the question in an exaggerated manner, as it caused confusion. If you would be so kind, please provide a quote from him in which he clearly states that the main priority of his design process is to ensure that no degenerate gameplay exists, ever. Because, he's obviously fine with the fact that the ability to save anywhere allows save-scumming, but still opts for a save-anywhere system.

 

Exactly, you shouldn't have posed the question in an exaggerated manner. And there was no confusion on my side. I can see through these straw man arguments. And now you ask another exaggerated question. Where have I stated that the main priority of Josh's design process is to ensure that no degenerate gameplay exists, ever?

 

I can imagine Josh has many priorities with the design process of the game and I would never say his main priority of degenerate gameplay is more important (or his main priority as you've suggested) than the other design processes of the game. But nice try with the straw man again.

 

 

 

I fear you have mistaken the definition of "intended." I distinctly declared the condition of the developers not wanting the dragon to be killed in one hit (not counting the application of the Harm spell as a "hit" -- I guess I should just say "damaging hit" to be most precise), it isn't functioning as intended. You can't intend for your game to have a big bad boss fight that's intended to be difficult (aka requiring of much effort on the player's part) to overcome, AND simultaneously intend for the player to be able to easily dispatch of that foe because of a mere dice roll (which doesn't = difficulty, because if the dice roll is good, you still simply clicked a single ability button and selected a target). You said it yourself; if they didn't want the player to be able to Harm the dragon, they shouldn't have allowed it. That's the whole point. The fact that they allowed it just means that they did it wrong, not that they wanted you to kill the dragon in 1 hit. 

 

The fact is the dragon can't be killed with one hit and it's not easily dispatched with the spell. It requires a lot of effort to pull it off. You obviously don't know what you're talking about. And the whole point is the dev's did allow it because it's an option given to the players. The fact that it's hard to pull off is why it's allowed. The fact that they allowed it means they did it right and kept with the spirit of the D&D rules at the time.

 

 

 

Also, the analogy makes perfect sense. It doesn't have anything to do with video games, you're quite correct. It has to do with intention, and how you can't intend 2 binary opposites at the same time. Which, in turn, has to do with video game design, for video game designers have intentions.

 

Really, if you weren't being so stubborn and jumping at the merest opportunity to have a go at me before you even apply a few ounces of thought to the things I'm saying, you could make these connections instead of assuming they don't exist, and we'd both be saved the time of my having to explain every single thing I say.

 

 

The analogy doesn't make any sense. But keeping using those circular arguments to convince yourself.

 

Really, if you weren't being so stubborn and jumping at the merest opportunity to have a go at me before you even apply a few ounces of thought to the things I'm saying, you could make these connections instead of assuming they don't exist, and we'd both be saved the time of my having to explain every single thing I say. (this is to show you should be applying this to yourself)

 

 

Nope. That's the thing about chance. If you do 100 damage with your sword, but the dragon has 99 armor, then sword-attacking it is rendered a nonviable option. But, a spell like Harm is governed by chance. Thus, the low chance renders it a probably nonviable option, but still possibly an INCREDIBLY viable option. One player could, on his first try, take the Dragon down to 1HP. That's WAY more effective than anything else you can do. 

 

It's not really a viable option because the chances are very small. And if you tried it, you are likely to fail. Also, there are far better spells later in the game than Harm.

 

 

Harm isn't "hard" to pull off. It's completely beyond the scope of your effort to pull off. No decision you actively make influences its likelihood to be more effective as opposed to not-at-all effective.

 

LMAO. Harm isn't hard to pull off with a dragon? Fraps your battle and show us. More fuzzy logic with the rest of your reply.

 

 

Besides, you don't just get ONE use of Harm, right? You can prep multiples of it, correct? And what are you going to do if you try to fight the dragon that way, but fail? Die. And unless you're playing on Iron Man mode, what are you going to do next? Reload and retry. That's not even save-scumming. That's simply continuing because of a Game Over situation. Guess what happens when you reload? You get more usages of Harm to try against the dragon again! 8D

 

 

So you're going to replace your Heal spells with Harm spells? One of the most beneficial spells in the game is going to be replaced with one of the most unreliable tactics in the game due to your characters ability to hit with it. Talk about theory crafting going into the stratosphere.

 

Yep, our healers are now frontline fighters with very little or no Heal spells because Lephys seems to think it's a viable option. And when our characters are taking a beating, there's no Heal spells to heal our characters. What a poor play style. Silly theory crafting there. And that's what it is, your theory crafting against other people's experience.

 

 

 

No, it's not wrong of the player to use Harm in that manner. It's the game's fault for making it a statistically good idea. It's turning tactical combat into gambling, even against a foe that's supposed to require the most effort from the player, not the most luck.

 

Anywho, that's starting to get off on a tangent about design, itself. The important point you were missing was that, IF, in your design, something's supposed to be a tough fight, and you put something in the game that allows it to be a ridiculously easy fight, then you've counteracted your own design, and you can't blame the player for not going out of his way to ensure it remains a tough fight (by, say... refraining from using Harm.)

 

 

It's not a statistically good idea. It's a statistically bad idea. The fact is it doesn't allow it to be a ridiculously easy fight, since trying to pull it off is hard. It's still a tough fight to use Harm because of all the variables you have to put in place. It's harder to pull off Harm than by using your normal tactics against dragons and you should be rewarded for that.

[Stun]

 

In the IE games, Harm requires that your Cleric score a melee hit.

... which is luck-based.

 

Skill Based. Like all melee. Stop splitting hairs.

 

If the goal of the fight is to kill a big scary dragon, and ANY of your attacks could possibly miss it (except maybe stuff like Magic Missile... although it might could resist those? I don't know enough specific D&D trivia off the top of my head to know for sure... anywho), would you rather possibly hit it for 20 or 50 while also possibly missing (or it resisting/saving, etc.), or would you rather possibly hit it for all-its-health-minus-1 damage?

 

It'd be one thing if all your other, lesser attacks were guaranteed, but that one was chance. But, that isn't the case.

To be honest, I'd rather use my weapon.

 

If you're trying to say that Harm can be far more powerful against a dragon than a Sword, I won't argue. It IS more powerful, but that does not mean it's more viable. A sword can hit a dragon, and all it takes is for its wielder to score a hit. In fact depending on the wielder, a sword can hit a dragon several times per round. Add special enchantments on that sword, and the sky's the limit on the damage possibilities.

 

In the meantime, Harm requires the cleric to successfully cast it. Then successfully score a hit (harder to do than a fighter). Then it must defeat the dragon's Magic resistance. That's 3 major hurdles. In a dragon fight, this can often be too big a risk on its own, and the deciding factor when coming up with a strategy.

Edited January 26, 2014 by Stun