Yep. And it perfectly balanced it with fireballs requiring expensive reagents to cast.
That sounds like he had a problem with people lowering the difficulty or getting better at the game. Which of course we know he does, he likes to punish skilled players and enable rampant stupidity and lack of preparation. As weve seen through the years.
Josh's issue is that he uses Baldings Govt as any kind of reference to how to make good game.
But it didn't make game unbeatable. Or is every system where it's possible to play suboptimally flawed?
How is this relevant in any way? every game ever is unbeatable if you are bad enough.
"Most players are bad,"--Josh Sawyer
No, most players are average. Most developers and publishers just make games for the lowest common denominator in hopes theyll buy it. But the lowest common denominator doesnt buy old school rpgs, so whats the fucking point of applying that way of thinking to make them?
quoting sawyer is like quoting known shitposters and dumbfucks of the codex. people may know who you speak of but that doesn't make their statements valid. it just makes you look stupid. yes there are people whose job it is to playtest. there were also people whose job it was to farm wow gold all day long. both did not get payed well and both were not very smart. their game of choice in this case would not have been iwd since they obviously sucked so much at it they couldn't even kill goblins but rather something with a bit more action like fallout 4 or goat rape simulator. the part about adnd professional testers is obviously made up since there were never enough adnd games to make a living off of playtesting them.
"many", people complain about difficulty. the first week of release D:OS had players complaining they couldnt kill shitty zombies. Bad players are bad, doesnt mean they make a majority, or that you should listen to them. Sides, let players get frustrated, let them grit their teeth and try again, eventually theyll do better. That feeling of being unable to beat something, then figuring it out, give me that, i want that.
This only proves that some people should get fired. Again, if a person cant beat an obstacle, then that person should be left behind, faced with that he either quits or improves. "We have bad players and therefore we make easy games" isnt how it works. Its more like "we make easy games, therefore breed bad players".JE Sawyer said:
Also this.
Then there is no problem, is there? I thought hard counters were an issue specifically because of some metagaming angle, but if it comes down to players being too lazy to even try, I guess the argument was even more pointless than usual. Sawyer really is just an ambassador of decline.
As was Bioware before them, who made a little game called Baldur's Gate which they promised would be a streamlined and simpler version of D&D that everyone and his mother could play - their words. But despite that, they still had to dumb down their combat encounters once the playtesters got ahold of them. Why? Because the core RPG audience are the sort of people who will do the same thing over and over and over, even if it gets them killed over and over and over. They just keep ramming their head into the wall, never learning. And they will just keep dying until eventually, inevitably, they give up, and then blame the game for being stupid. Because their builds are obviously perfect.
Well I think every roleplayer realises it's not possible to get everything what he wants in a zero sum game. And even in PnP, it is not possible always since other players have different opinions.
