Remove Restrictions and let this game breath

[Goddard]

A fully responsive and dynamic world would surely force the game away from Isometric, unless we are talking more of responsive in the "rp" sense.

 

Either way, making things more responsive just means creating more systems, and more content that hooks into those systems. To make things interesting and non-repetitive instances of these systems need to be somewhat custom and bespoke. I think we already see this with the systems that are in place, and certainly I'd love to see a lot more mundane and trivial stuff added to the world, if only to flesh it out.

 

To really have a universal simulation game, It would take years of building on subsystems to a core franchise over a number of installments. I think the best we should be asking for is a solid attempt at incrementalism.

 

You are taking simulation too literal.

 

We are talking about a fantasy land simulation with magic, monsters, and dark passage ways.

 

What my example is referring to is the most basic of intelligence emulation.  I even included a related emulation in preventing theft by having the creatures agro if the player is caught stealing.  The lines of distinction are pretty clear.

 

We aren't talking about a physics simulation for the annihilation of a bridge at hurricane speeds.

 

I am saying I could create general intelligence for all creatures in the game.  It would just be apart of their make up and it wouldn't take up any CPU cycles at all because it would still be reactionary.

 

This would have a direct effect on game play in reference to Mr. Sawyers design ideology.  His design ideology is extreme control.  The game feels like it was designed for on-line multi-player in a persistent world the way everything is so locked down.

 

If the idea is to simulate the fantasy land and also provide a sort of "choose your own path book" kind of story telling style then it would make more sense to highlight the player and their decisions.

 

Every creature in D&D has a certain range of intelligence and specific abilities.  Being able to perceive the world to a large degree without outside help depends on your own intelligence.  If you are buffing next to a pack of kobolds most likely they might be some what stunned by the pretty colors or something.  If you are casting a healing spell in front of human clerics they will know exactly what spell that is whereas a human fighter might think you are casting something that could harm them if you aren't exactly allies, or your relationship is new.  That is why you could have multiple faction delineations with intelligence checks.  This is just the same as in BG where you actually need to identify items.

 

You see all these things make sense, but Mr. Sawyer already said he doesn't care about things making sense.  He just wants control over the system so it is perfectly manageable with respect to encounters.  That is a very boring from my own experience playing games.  In a multi-player world such as NWN where you played in a persistent environment that sort of thing makes sense.

 

It doesn't make much sense in a game that is not massively on-line and doesn't even allow you to play on-line with friends.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Goddard

[Wormerine]

If the idea is to simulate the fantasy land and also provide a sort of "choose your own path book" kind of story telling style then it would make more sense to highlight the player and their decisions.

 

 

Every creature in D&D has a certain range of intelligence and specific abilities.  Being able to perceive the world to a large degree without outside help depends on your own intelligence.  If you are buffing next to a pack of kobolds most likely they might be some what stunned by the pretty colors or something.  If you are casting a healing spell in front of human clerics they will know exactly what spell that is whereas a human fighter might think you are casting something that could harm them if you aren't exactly allies, or your relationship is new.  That is why you could have multiple faction delineations with intelligence checks.  This is just the same as in BG where you actually need to identify items.

 

You see all these things make sense, but Mr. Sawyer already said he doesn't care about things making sense.  He just wants control over the system so it is perfectly manageable with respect to encounters.  That is a very boring from my own experience playing games.  In a multi-player world such as NWN where you played in a persistent environment that sort of thing makes sense.

 

It doesn't make much sense in a game that is not massively on-line and doesn't even allow you to play on-line with friends.

 

Did you play recently a PvE version of multiplayer game? I like Starcraft. Blizzard is a big, talented company with lots of cash to spend. Playing unscripted game of starcraft against AI isn't an engaging experience (though its much better than it was years ago.) The AI isn't up to snuff to analyze your behaviour in sensible way and react. You write as if AI was capable of thinking by itself. It's not. And its a game we are talking about. Simulating natural human behaviour and reactions will be much tougher to achieve.

 

So lets say the game would allow prebuffing, and would make certain creatures recognize danger - beatles would attack you no matter how prebuffed you were, merceneries might decide to run instead, if they "sense" you are too prepared for them. So... how does it work as a game system. What does this system add to the experience? It is supposed to make you prebuff before "more inteligent" enemies to avoid combat if you wish so? If that's the case how do you limit resting to make sure players won't prebuff before every fight. What useful tool does this system give designers when creating quests. Is it a clear and engaging system for players to interact with? Will enemies running away will be satisfying for players. Won't they miss key loot? Do devs write dialogue to support those behavours? How variations does it need to become predictible and boring. Are those behaviours hand scripted or generated (it was supposed to be a tough fight but you have 5 mages in your party and they all prebuffed and you have no more spells but the game thinks it can't kill you so they just leave.)

 

What does identifying items have to do with anything? So yeah, you had to identify an item before using it, or pay for identifying them. Its a cool system. But neither BG or PoE have an economy to balance that. Money is a non issue. So what is the gameplay purpose of identifying things? "you need inteligence to indentify an item!" "What if I don't have enough inteligence?" "Well, nothing really." "So what's the point?" "Well, it was in Pen&Paper. Doesn't really do anything in this game, as you can leave whenever you want but we still implimented the system. Seemed like a good idea at the time but we really don't know what to do with it"

 

I am still trying to figure out what game you want to play and I can't figure it out.

[illathid]

 

I am saying I could create general intelligence for all creatures in the game.  It would just be apart of their make up and it wouldn't take up any CPU cycles at all because it would still be reactionary.

 

 

I look forward to seeing your deadfire mod where you do this. The proof is in the pudding.

[Goddard]

I am planning on working on GemRB and will experiment on that, but conceptually it is not complicated.  I will let you know when I get the chance, Mind flayer.

[TygerxEyes]

PRE-PREP & SURPRISE

First, with regard to pre-buffing your party, I know that I could do just that in the classic and award winning father of this style of party (vs single player) game Baldur's Gate. Yes, I am that old and I have played D&D & AD&D Table Top. I never noticed that it unbalanced the game, especially when the enemies were often pre-buffed.

​Unfortunately, to add such a feature in at this stage of the game would require a little more than a little computer time (depending on how complicated and/or balance you wanted it to be... because it was left out of the larger system (and within the game theory-and-mechanics). It would be a bit more realistic for the game - to determiner prior to every encounter - surprise status of sorts - whether the party was detected/heard allowing the enemy to pre-buff.  So, intelligent creature rooms would have to have two pre-encounter states: (1) Standard No Buff & (2) Prepped & Buffed State - which would trigger according to 'surprise' status - of course, for PCs that would suck, if all the thieves and assassins in a room were invisible when you entered and your entire party is hit with multiple crushing poison backstabs... lol.

​When I read the arguments against this concept, I find them a little hard (IMHO) as I have played a number of games from Baldur's Gate (and all the related AD&D Games), Drakensang, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls (Daggerfall to Skyrim), Arcanum, etc.,. It might be how I am reading the comments (and misunderstanding them), but some folks suggest that it is not possible without screwing-up the game mechanics - but it has been done with some success.

It is not a completely unreasonable request and compromises could be reached - maybe allowing only certain spells, only L1 and L2 spells, or allowing only 1 or 2 buff spells per character... and it has been done pretty successfully in other games; however, the problem is... the game system was not originally designed to include these features/options and depending on how complicated you want the balances to be... it would involve a lot of additional computer programming which might be better spent on more content and encounters and richer story lines... right?

​BEST ARGUMENTS AGAINST (IMHO):

"No Surprise" Mechanic - Casting spells is not a quiet endeavor and without a chance of being overheard or attracting the attention of nearby foes or wandering monsters... the argument that you can always prep in unrealistic fashion holds a lot of weight. 

​"No Foe Senses" - Building on the concept above, as the game stands now, other than line-of-eye within the visional zone (aka you are not longer in the fog-of-war zone and visible to the foes... you can never be heard. You can literally be right around the corner without a door or other barrier to obstruct sound and - as long as you have not triggered line of sight - you can literally cast spells, change armor (imagine going from robes to full plate) without being heard or detected, pretty silly...

​"PC Psychic Powers" - Given you can save the game prior to any battle, you are go into the room and either get butt whipped and/or just reload without even fighting and you have pre-cogged the encounter so you know where everyone is located, what monsters, and all kinds of stuff that you could not know in the real world without successful recon. So you prep based on information you would never normally have...

-----
​

MULTIPLE MAGIC ITEMS:

​

While it is true that magic (not being real) can be rationalized to work in many ways (DMs/GMs have come-up with countless magical theories to explain how things work and what limits exist)... however, at the root of these comes into play what use to be referred to as "Monty Hall" games were doles out absurd amounts of treasure, power, and magic and characters quickly become divine level beings. Some common limits from my long-running table top games runs as follows:

​EXAMPLE 1:  Magic Protection creates a NON-LAYERED aura of magical protective energy and so only the greatest protection level applies +5 Plate Mail does not stack with +3 Ring of Protection because it does not layer. +5 Magic only applies to the Armor (not most saving throws vs effects) and so the advantage is that +3 Ring covers all saving throws vs effects.

​EXAMPLE 2: Magic auras sources are limited to 3 items on typical mortal which are not very closely located - not on the same hand (aka PC/NPC) - typically, 2 rings and a necklace (though theoretically you might allow 3 rings - one per hand and one on toes or one in ear - blah, blah, blah.  It is game balance - if auras layer or stack and do not cross interfere - couldn't you wear 10 rings, 1 necklace, 10 toe rings, and say 10 earrings (5 per ear) and you wore... +3 Protection Items your character would be +30 to all saves plus add +5 plate and you are AC -42 (in table top games pretty much unhittable) or maybe you change 5 earrings from +3 protections to... fire resistance, lightning resistance, cold resistance, poison resistance, and 1 stored heal spell (if I remember correctly... Resistance means immune to mundane and 1/2 or 1/4 damage on magical variations rather than full or 1/2 damage - I think - it's been a long time - hehe) - but you get the point.  Moreover, since plate mail is technically a composite of various pieces of armor and you do allow stacking each piece? Breast plated could be +3, each shoulder piece +5, etc.,... how many pieces make up plate armor?  What if you woven magical rings into a chain links of chain mail, and so on... and... er, you get the point.

​I mean - magic is not real - and you can govern your world how you want, however, I tended to play in long-running campaigns (as opposed to beer-and-pretzels or one-to-two off games), so some consistent game mechanics and theory were musts -- that is the reason to place strict limits on number of magical items which you can use at once, or aura-theory, and for limiting stacking of abilities. In some games, strict DM/GM might make you carry other magical rings that you were not using in lead-lined belt pouch to prevent magical cross interfere with the two you were wearing (once saw in a magic-jewelry-always-active-and-on game) though most games run on the - rings are inactive when not worn by a living being - then undead theory comes into play - want the answer in this game - animated corpses without possessing spirits could not benefit - meaning skeletons and zombies; however, ghouls on up possessed dark life force and triggered effect.

​Anyway, coming back to PoE/PoE2, rather strict limits with regard to this second topic are pretty universal - prevents Monty Haul Games.

​-----

Mode: Monty Haul. Any campaign where the gamemaster doles out huge amounts of experience/treasure/power/other rewards. Usually becomes stupefyingly pointless after the player characters become the most wealthy/powerful beings in the universe.

—Jason Sartin, RPG Cliches

 

The greatest danger Gabriel's characters are likely to face is literally drowning in their platinum wealth.

—Penny Arcade, "DM 101"

Edited November 30, 2017 by TygerxEyes

[TygerxEyes]

 

If the idea is to simulate the fantasy land and also provide a sort of "choose your own path book" kind of story telling style then it would make more sense to highlight the player and their decisions.

 

 

Every creature in D&D has a certain range of intelligence and specific abilities.  Being able to perceive the world to a large degree without outside help depends on your own intelligence.  If you are buffing next to a pack of kobolds most likely they might be some what stunned by the pretty colors or something.  If you are casting a healing spell in front of human clerics they will know exactly what spell that is whereas a human fighter might think you are casting something that could harm them if you aren't exactly allies, or your relationship is new.  That is why you could have multiple faction delineations with intelligence checks.  This is just the same as in BG where you actually need to identify items.

 

You see all these things make sense, but Mr. Sawyer already said he doesn't care about things making sense.  He just wants control over the system so it is perfectly manageable with respect to encounters.  That is a very boring from my own experience playing games.  In a multi-player world such as NWN where you played in a persistent environment that sort of thing makes sense.

 

It doesn't make much sense in a game that is not massively on-line and doesn't even allow you to play on-line with friends.

 

Did you play recently a PvE version of multiplayer game? I like Starcraft. Blizzard is a big, talented company with lots of cash to spend. Playing unscripted game of starcraft against AI isn't an engaging experience (though its much better than it was years ago.) The AI isn't up to snuff to analyze your behaviour in sensible way and react. You write as if AI was capable of thinking by itself. It's not. And its a game we are talking about. Simulating natural human behaviour and reactions will be much tougher to achieve.

 

So lets say the game would allow prebuffing, and would make certain creatures recognize danger - beatles would attack you no matter how prebuffed you were, merceneries might decide to run instead, if they "sense" you are too prepared for them. So... how does it work as a game system. What does this system add to the experience? It is supposed to make you prebuff before "more inteligent" enemies to avoid combat if you wish so? If that's the case how do you limit resting to make sure players won't prebuff before every fight. What useful tool does this system give designers when creating quests. Is it a clear and engaging system for players to interact with? Will enemies running away will be satisfying for players. Won't they miss key loot? Do devs write dialogue to support those behavours? How variations does it need to become predictible and boring. Are those behaviours hand scripted or generated (it was supposed to be a tough fight but you have 5 mages in your party and they all prebuffed and you have no more spells but the game thinks it can't kill you so they just leave.)

 

What does identifying items have to do with anything? So yeah, you had to identify an item before using it, or pay for identifying them. Its a cool system. But neither BG or PoE have an economy to balance that. Money is a non issue. So what is the gameplay purpose of identifying things? "you need inteligence to indentify an item!" "What if I don't have enough inteligence?" "Well, nothing really." "So what's the point?" "Well, it was in Pen&Paper. Doesn't really do anything in this game, as you can leave whenever you want but we still implimented the system. Seemed like a good idea at the time but we really don't know what to do with it"

 

I am still trying to figure out what game you want to play and I can't figure it out.

 

 

What if the intelligent foes are very intelligent with stealth and tracking ability... might they not wait until your prep went down? or run away, hide, and then hunt you down hours later when most intelligent beings would know your prep is down?   

[Wormerine]

What if the intelligent foes are very intelligent with stealth and tracking ability... might they not wait until your prep went down? or run away, hide, and then hunt you down hours later when most intelligent beings would know your prep is down? 

 

We still talking about writing AI which analysis situation and reacts accordingly. AI can’t think for itself, and will follow scripted reactions. Strangely enough, the more “intelligent” AI is, the more stupid it becomes ones you understand how it works.

 

I played original XCOM for many, many years and never got bored with encountered, because AI is basic to the point it will often do illogical things and surprise you. New XCOMs have much more robust AI with enemies reacting to your move, focusing vonourable enemies, refusing to run throug overwatch, if it’s probably going to kill you. That also makes AI very predictable, and after couple of hours of game any resemblance of intelligence disappears, with AI reactions you can easily predict and abuse.

 

I think this “simulation” is possible but in a much less wordy, procedural RPG. To me it seems like developing entirely different game, which doesn’t support the game you are actually creating.

[Barleypaper]

 

What if the intelligent foes are very intelligent with stealth and tracking ability... might they not wait until your prep went down? or run away, hide, and then hunt you down hours later when most intelligent beings would know your prep is down? 

We still talking about writing AI which analysis situation and reacts accordingly. AI can’t think for itself, and will follow scripted reactions. Strangely enough, the more “intelligent” AI is, the more stupid it becomes ones you understand how it works.

 

I played original XCOM for many, many years and never got bored with encountered, because AI is basic to the point it will often do illogical things and surprise you. New XCOMs have much more robust AI with enemies reacting to your move, focusing vonourable enemies, refusing to run throug overwatch, if it’s probably going to kill you. That also makes AI very predictable, and after couple of hours of game any resemblance of intelligence disappears, with AI reactions you can easily predict and abuse.

 

I think this “simulation” is possible but in a much less wordy, procedural RPG. To me it seems like developing entirely different game, which doesn’t support the game you are actually creating.

 

I think this is a really important point. Firstly, because it highlights the subtle and, often, unwanted effects that seemingly benign changes can have on the overall feel of a game. But also, more relevant to this topic, it demonstrates one of the key reasons for putting restrictions on your players in the first place: players are much, much smarter than your enemies will ever be (in terms of scripted AI in Unity, at least).

 

Take the pre-buffing example: the proposed solution is to make enemies more reactive to player actions before combat begins. If the enemies can spot you "cheating", they'll jump you, or run away, or do a dance. The problem is that now players just need to learn the simple rules (and they'll need to be simple) which govern this behaviour and play around it. Or, better yet, exploit it.

 

How about a different solution? Lets let player's pre-buff before fights but make the fights tougher, to compensate. Give the enemies plenty of dispelling magic and let them cast cheaty sequencers to instantly protect themselves. This is how Baldur's Gate solved the problem: again, by making their enemies smarter. Did it work? A little, not really. Depending on who you ask. It certainly made for some, quite literally, colorful fights.

 

So, now you're back to where you started: don't let players cast buffs at all. Well, now your players have 1 less tool in their arsenal to have fun with. But fights are easier to balance; saves some development time! (I don't consider this to be a particularly discussion-worthy benefit, but some people seem to think it matters) The best way to stop players gaming a system is to limit the ways in which they can interact with it. If you disallow pre-buffing, players can't use it to trivialise combat encounters. If you remove instant-death effects from the game, players can't 1-shot dragons with Quivering Palm. If you place invisible walls around all your levels, players can't get out-of-bounds.

 

In short, you can't win. You can either let players beat your AI bloody, or you can hamstring their attempts: shackle them down so they can only play by your rules, and make the game easier to balance.

 

That's not to say that reactive AI can't be used well or have a positive impact on the challenge of a game. Or, that you should never restrict player freedom because it always detracts from the fun. You're going to end up with a mix of both: freedom + limitations = challenge.

 

(Also, for my money, I think it helps if whatever restrictions you do add don't feel too artificial.)

Edited November 30, 2017 by Barleypaper