Fuck Dragon Age 3, this thread is now about RPG stat systems

[GreatPretender]

400 page thread, GO.

 

[Roguey]

Regardless, I think people were way too forgiving about the game throwing out RPG elements, and that attitude had consequences.

It taught Bioware that they could throw out RPG elements and actually receive critical praise for it. "No stats, and not even the RPGCodex cares! Let's go full retard!!"

That wasn't their goal.
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/315/index/7992640&lf=8

I've said it before, and I will say it again: we stripped some stuff out of DA becuase it was busted. Other stuff was simply a design choice, and some of it was circumstance. There is no way you guys could know exactly what falls on what side of that triangle, and as devs we are not always able to be crystal clear on that kind of thing, especially immediately after a controversial game launch when the community was so far out for blood that they took my suggestion that setting a game that was too easy to a higher difficulty might be a good call was some sort of gigantic, egotistical middle finger to the entire fanbase. That was not a time for reasonable discussion, clearly.

Now is the time. And I'm still very interested to hear what you folks have to say (unless it is a demand for gameplay videos before we announce anything, that is. ), and we are still working on the formula. If I'm going to piss you guys off, it's going to be because I still firmly believe that RPGs do need to be more accessible to new players. Not dumbed down, not "consolized" (whatever that means. There are insanely complex games on the console), not diminished, but made less imposing and less terrifying to new players. In part because I want more people to play Dragon Age, and in part because there have been a lot of improvements in gameplay and UI design in the past 15 years, and we can learn from them.
...
There's also a very large disconnect between where the Dragon Age community thinks we are headed and where we are actually going. As I've noted before, there's two data points in terms of major releases, and I think people have been rather hasty in drawing a line from DAO to DA2 to Devil May Cry. There's a LOT of territory between DA2 and DMC, and if we were truly headed in that direction, we would have made much larger changes. Cut party, remove crafting, one class, etc would all be changes that show a move to action game, but none of those happened. A lot of doom was perceived in the wave combat and changing follower equipment, exaggerated by other faults with the game.

In part, I believe that's a communication error on our part. I know we were not universally reassuring about the direction of DA during the DAII marketing campaign or even here on these forums. There were a number of reasons for that, many of which are not fit for public consumption, but rest assured that we'll take steps to rectify that over the next little while.

http://www.formspring.me/iTonyEvans/q/320264246623484752

Early on, I concepted gameplay features that didn't make it into DA2 due to time constraints, but will likely be part of DA3.

Of course the decision to throw out systems entirely instead of tweaking them is a really strange one, as even Sawyer's observed. I'm sure it makes complete sense to them.

Fucking graphics is worse - how did they manage to achieve that I have no idea.

Origins was particularly ugly on consoles. The 360 and PS3 versions of DA2 actually do look better, but they did so at the expense of the PC version. The barebones areas and UI are a consequence of trying to squeeze every last bit of memory they can (just look at the UI for the 360/PS3 Origins).

 

[Infinitron]

Roguey Oh please, don't quote Laidlaw at me. He's talking only about the most obvious changes made to the game for his Biodrone audience that isn't smart enough to notice the other, more systemic changes. Wave combat and follower equipment, hah!

 

[Roguey]

Roguey Oh please, don't quote Laidlaw at me. He's talking only about the most obvious changes made to the game for his Biodrone audience that isn't smart enough to notice the other, more systemic changes. Wave combat and follower equipment, hah!

I'm pretty sure he's talking about everything, since I actually did read everything he actually wrote. And some of those Biodrones can be pretty thorough when it comes to systems, just look at all the information presented in the Gameplay and Strategy subforum, painting them all with the same brush does them a disservice.

 

[Infinitron]

Roguey Oh please, don't quote Laidlaw at me. He's talking only about the most obvious changes made to the game for his Biodrone audience that isn't smart enough to notice the other, more systemic changes. Wave combat and follower equipment, hah!

I'm pretty sure he's talking about everything, since I actually did read everything he actually wrote. And some of those Biodrones can be pretty thorough when it comes to systems, just look at all the information presented in the Gameplay and Strategy subforum, painting them all with the same brush does them a disservice.

So they decided to completely lobotomize an already implemented stat system and change it to "one primary stat per class, increase it on level-up and ignore everything else" because...why? I don't get it. I don't get the statphobia. Stats don't bother millions of MMO players. Stats don't bother millions of Diablo players. Only in single player, narrative-focused RPGs are they suddenly considered to be "too complex".

 

[Roguey]

So they decided to completely lobotomize an already implemented stat system and change it to "one primary stat per class, increase it on level-up and ignore everything else" because...why? I don't get it. I don't get the statphobia. Stats don't bother millions of MMO players. Stats don't bother millions of Diablo players. Only in single player, narrative-focused RPGs are they suddenly considered to be "too complex".

Actually there are two primaries. And well, that's pretty much how it was in Origins, you make the most effective characters just pumping your damage stats. Apparently this wasn't made explicit enough for some players, hence the changes. However, it wasn't their intent for you to only put all your points into one or two stats:

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/4715441/6&lf=8

0rz0 wrote...​

- Will there be more balance between specialised and generalist approaches? For example you gave that example of a mage putting everything into magic, but then staying weak in every other area. In origins it was kinda similar, but the huge spellpower enabled the mage to neutralise/obliterate everything, before it coul even come near, effectively negating most drawbacks of such a build. Same for warriors and rogues, who needs defense when you got 50+ armor. And who needs armor when nothing can hit you (ok, I'm exagerationg a bit, but I hope I made the point clear).​

In DAO most combat math worked on a linear scale. 5 Armor would negate 5 damage. Similarly with Attack and Defense. This led to a lot of problems in the higher levels where someone who had neglected the stat would get butchered, and someone who specialized would be invulnerable. Combat math now works on percentages with diminishing returns. Even if you have the most armor possible, some will still get through. Even the best defense has a small chance of getting hit, etc. Every class can focus on offense at the expense of defense, but it's part of my job to punish you for that.

Obviously he failed. Those crazy time restrictions.

As an aside I think it's utterly hilarious how they managed to fuck up a linear DT system in Origins (and especially the expansion) considering Sawyer says it's easier to balance than percentage system.

 

[Infinitron]

Actually there are two primaries. And well, that's pretty much how it was in Origins, you make the most effective characters just pumping your damage stats.

I'm not talking about "creating the most effective character". DA:O actually gave you plausible reasons to consider various builds. Cunning and armor penetration, strength was good for both warriors and rogues, etc. Even magic was of marginal utility for a warrior or rogue who enjoyed chugging health poultices. And that's just off the top of my head. In DA2? LOL INCREASE YOUR PRIMARIES

Oh fuck and not to mention the bizarre idea of separating rogue and warrior weapons. WTF???

 

[Roguey]

Actually there are two primaries. And well, that's pretty much how it was in Origins, you make the most effective characters just pumping your damage stats.

I'm not talking about "creating the most effective character". DA:O actually gave you plausible reasons to consider various builds. Cunning and armor penetration, strength was good for both warriors and rogues, etc. Even magic was of marginal utility for a warrior or rogue who enjoyed chugging health poultices. And that's just off the top of my head. In DA2? LOL INCREASE YOUR PRIMARIES

From that same thread:

Q3: Will mages be required to invest in Str / Dex this time if they want to fight? Or will simply dumping everything into Magic result in a well rounded arcane warrior/caster again?​

Dumping everything into their primary attribute is a viable way to create a character. They will hit a lot and do a lot of damage, but will suffer in every other way. It will work in a lot of situations, but it won't be a well rounded character.

Need to clarify again, heh. Will a mage's melee capability be determined by both Str and Magic, or Magic alone like with Origin's Arcane Warriors? Will there be a reason for a Mage to invest in Str / Dex / Con / Cunning​

A Mage would invest in those other attributes for the benefits they give like Impact Resistance (to not be knocked around by enemy attacks), Critical Chance (you can get spell criticals too), Health (to be more survivable). Not every stat will be necessary for every character, depending on your playstyle.

See? DA2 also has plausible reasons to consider various builds. Both games have balance fuck-ups to discourage those builds of course.

Oh fuck and not to mention the bizarre idea of separating rogue and warrior weapons. WTF???

They wanted to have more strongly-defined class roles.

 

[Infinitron]

Roguey Nice try, but I'm aware that mages were fairly separate from warriors/rogues even in DA:O, in terms of stats and mechanics. It was the blatant and artificial separation between warriors and rogues that pissed me off the most in DA2. It was a huge piss on what little D&D influence DA:O had.

Biodrone: "Help me Bioware, I don't know whether I should upgrade my character's strength for more damage or his dexterity for an increased chance to hit!"

Laidlaw: "OMG THIS IS TOO COMPLEX FOR OUR PLAYERS. Let's combine them into one primary stat!"

 

[Infinitron]

By the way, just so you know, your apologetics for this game are a bone-headed move and will make everybody here take you less seriously when you defend Josh Sawyer and Project Eternity.

You need to be more strategic with your contrarianism.

 

[Roguey]

Roguey Nice try, but I'm aware that mages were fairly separate from warriors/rogues even in DA:O, in terms of stats and mechanics. It was the blatant and artificial separation between warriors and rogues that pissed me off the most in DA2. It was a huge piss on what little D&D influence DA:O had.

D&D sucks though so that's a good thing?

Hypothetically, DA2 rogues and warriors could benefit from magic to get more magic resistance (reducing damage and decreasing the duration of negative effects). Additionally rogues could put points in strength to avoid nasty force effects and constitution to be less fragile (my con-neglecting rogue could get one-shotted by certain spells by endgame). Likewise warriors could get cunning to outright avoid more attacks and get more critical hit damage and dexterity to get a better critical hit chance. These things could benefit them in a hypothetical game with more time and thought put into its fights.

Biodrone: "Help me Bioware, I don't know whether I should upgrade my character's strength for more damage or his dexterity for an increased chance to hit!"

Laidlaw: "OMG THIS IS TOO COMPLEX FOR OUR PLAYERS. Let's combine them into one primary stat!"

That's not how Origins stats worked.
Strength:
Increases damage from all weapons except staves and crossbows
Increases attack in melee by 0.5 per point above 10
Increases physical resistance by 0.5 per point above 10

Dexterity:
Increases melee attack score by 0.5 per point above 10
Increases ranged attack score by 0.5 per point above 10
Increases damage from piercing weapons (per weapon-specific attribute modifiers)
Increases defense by 1 per point above 10
Increases physical resistance by 0.5 per point above 10

So a warrior could (and did) neglect dexterity entirely and still get good attack rolls and damage. Rogues could put just enough points in strength to get the best light armor (something that requires prescience) then the rest in dexterity (after the 1.02a patch that corrected the bug that only gave a damage bonus from strength when it was supposed to be 50% strength 50% dexterity). One-stat wonders.

By the way, just so you know, your apologetics for this game are a bone-headed move and will make everybody here take you less seriously when you defend Josh Sawyer and Project Eternity.

I'm not apologizing for anything. I'm explaining how not all of DA2's shit was intentional. Some of it was certainly.

 

[Infinitron]

That's not how Origins stats worked.
Strength:
Increases damage from all weapons except staves and crossbows
Increases attack in melee by 0.5 per point above 10
Increases physical resistance by 0.5 per point above 10

Dexterity:
Increases melee attack score by 0.5 per point above 10
Increases ranged attack score by 0.5 per point above 10
Increases damage from piercing weapons (per weapon-specific attribute modifiers)
Increases defense by 1 per point above 10
Increases physical resistance by 0.5 per point above 10

So a warrior could (and did) neglect dexterity entirely and still get good attack rolls and damage. Rogues could put just enough points in strength to get the best light armor (something that requires prescience) then the rest in dexterity (after then 1.02a patch that corrected the bug that only gave a damage bonus from strength when it was supposed to be 50% strength 50% dexterity). One-stat wonders.

Are you daft?

Strength - increases damage
Dextery - increases "attack score" (aka to-hit roll)

Two different stats. Choice.

DA2 dumped them all into one "THIS STAT MAKES YOU FIGHT BETTAR" primary stat, and then, to add insult to injury, made that stat different for each class to give a false appearance of variety.

 

[Roguey]

Bzzzzzt!

Increases damage from all weapons except staves and crossbows
Increases attack in melee by 0.5 per point above 10

Attack = to-hit chance.

Furthermore, dexerity increases damage on daggers and bows. So both stats both give you better damage and give you a better hit-chance depending on which weapons you're using.

 

[Grunker]

I think we simply use different nomenclature here. To me systems is the mechanics. A good system is such that puts all those mechanics into good use creating fun experience - this is its overriding objective and nothing else matters. I agree that designers should think first about the larger picture. However, before we can start working on it we need a set of premises - basic gameplay design or gameplay vision as you call it. (e.g. my system will allow mounted combat). It cannot be created in the void because it would a system for the system's sake - in such cases there's little gameplay. It does happen (I really have the impression that it happened in case of AoD).

Well to be fair, that's exactly what I'm saying. Basic gameplay decisions -> Choose a professional system -> Customize the system to fit your basic gameplay decision, then implement the system in your design.

whereas Bioware made a very focused effort with the system of their own.

And a very shallow one. Even though DA:O has a few strengths over AD&D, it still falls short because it is superficial, and not really a system as such but a bunch of gameplay mechanics thrown into a bucket and shaken together.

My argument is: you can make a system tailored for the gameplay from the scratch.

My argument is: Why would you do such a thing? Seriously, it's very simple: A system needs to form a greater whole. To do that, you can't make all the choices for your game design and then try to design a system around that. You need to start with a vision, then a system.

Look, you're saying: "Design the game, then make a system for it."

I'm saying: "Envision the game, pick a system, then make your game with it."

Your alternative is: "Envision the game, design a system, then make your game with it."

Now, I will grant you, Mrowak, that this by definition is an idea I can't turn down, because it is exactly the same as my own (IF, and only IF you get professional system designers to make that system). However, the question remains: Why do this, why spend the effort, when you have proven systems that you KNOW will work. When you have modular systems that can be tailored to fit your vision of a game? Even if you were completely correct and an entirely new system would be needed for some game visions, that is not the same as saying every cRPG needs a new system.

Again, history is on my side. Systems "tailor-made" for cRPGs are often unbalanced, crappy and too chaotic and arbitrary to be called systems. They also have the dubious honor of having less good cRPGs than the proven system-based ones.

The difference is Thief uses its own system.

I hope you're not recommending systems as simple as Thief's for use in cRPGs. Look, in essence, every game mechanic is a system, I agree with you on that. But most gameplay systems are not nearly as complex or customizable as cRPG systems. They need to be out in the open and stand up to scrutiny. You can't compare designing a few mods and skills in Deus Ex with the true depth on Pathfinder. It's nonsense. And the deeper and more gratifying the system in a cRPG, the more depth of gameplay and customization that cRPG will be able to deliver. From this follows variety in encounter-design and design-options in general for the designers.

He is ordered to go from city A to city B. He went on his own. Suddenly he is ambushed by 5 experienced bandits who gut his insides. Was the GM unfair? It depends - maybe there was a way for the player to avoid his demise? How could he accomplish it?

How is this a question? Did the merchant have a reasonable knowledge of the dangers of the road? Fair. Did he not? Did the GM randomly pull five bandits out of his ass on the high road guarded by a million dragon guards? Unfair.

A GM crafts a world and tells his players somewhat what they can expect and maybe lays a few groundrules for characterbuilding (we're talking standard open-world exploration P&P here, the genre most akin to cRPG). From there the players do what they want, character-wise.

The example I gave you comes from AoD where one failed skill-check rendered my build unplayable - I could not progress because the game did not allow a normal common-sense solution any GM would permit.

Gee... Could it be that AoD decided to craft its own system by scratch and get trapped by it? Feels like I've been saying this before...

but its amatourish implementation in a cRPG.

Did I say "using a proven system is fool-proof"? No. I said it was strictly surperior to inventing your own home-made system.

Look. It is quite simple: Video game developers are basically fan-amateurs in RPG system-development. And I have never, ever played a fan-made system that wasn't complete crap.

I like debating with you Mrowak. You're a true bro.

What the fuck do you want? What's wrong with a list of requirements? He has to start from somewhere.

If only he had a magical "plan" to make it all better. THE PLAN SAVES ALL! WORSHIP THE PLAN!

Are you daft? It's pretty clear what I want. Either:

1) Start with a proven system.

2) Hire a professional system designer.

or

3) If you really, really want to design your own shitty system, at least have the decency to have a vision for it, not just take each subsystem by itself and say "Well, armor is like this I guess... spells could be like this maybe..."

I cannot overstate this enough: A good system is a unified whole. A collection of rules that are all build on and correlate to each other. Not a bunch of game mechanics that work isolated from each other in some game developers mind.

 

[Grunker]

Be aware that I am shit drunk, so I haven't checked the above post for typos. A pleasure debating with y'all

 

[Infinitron]

I cannot overstate this enough: A good system is a unified whole. A collection of rules that are all build on and correlate to each other. Not a bunch of game mechanics that work isolated from each other in some game developers mind.

Even a "unified whole" starts from somewhere. It does not appear fully formed from thin air. It's also easier to describe aspects of a system than describe it as a "unified whole".

 

[Roguey]

Bzzzzzt!

Increases damage from all weapons except staves and crossbows
Increases attack in melee by 0.5 per point above 10

Attack = to-hit chance.

Furthermore, dexerity increases damage on daggers and bows. So both stats both give you better damage and give you a better hit-chance depending on which weapons you're using.

Post your source for that bolded section.

http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Attributes_(Origins)

Also I'm going to quote right from the manual:

Greater strength increases the base damage from all weapons except crossbows and mages' staves, and along with dexterity, determines whether a melee attack is successful.

Also I doublechecked and yes, the damage a mage does with a stave is also increased by the magic stat. And staves in Origins never miss so there's no attack roll to worry about. So you're upset over an aspect of DA2 that was pretty much the same in Origins only you never actually noticed it.

 

[Infinitron]

Bzzzzzt!

Increases damage from all weapons except staves and crossbows
Increases attack in melee by 0.5 per point above 10

Attack = to-hit chance.

Furthermore, dexerity increases damage on daggers and bows. So both stats both give you better damage and give you a better hit-chance depending on which weapons you're using.

Okay, you got me. DA:O's system is a bit dumber than I thought.

Still, it did a better job of encouraging you to mix it up and try dual melee/ranged characters, for instance.

Also stop quoting non-existent posts.

 

[Roguey]

Still, it did a better job of encouraging you to mix it up and try dual melee/ranged characters, for instance.

Hey, you can do that in DA2 too. With a rogue. Distinct class roles and all.

 

[Infinitron]

Hey, you can do that in DA2 too. With a rogue. Distinct class roles and all.

Yes, but that didn't force you to choose between stats. The rogue's stats governed both daggers and bows.

 

[bminorkey]

So guys, I sure hope there's interracial tranny romance in DA3.

 

[Grunker]

I cannot overstate this enough: A good system is a unified whole. A collection of rules that are all build on and correlate to each other. Not a bunch of game mechanics that work isolated from each other in some game developers mind.

Even a "unified whole" starts from somewhere. It does not appear fully formed from thin air.

Did you intentionally ignore my Start With A Vision -> Pick a System -> Make the Game comment or did you just miss it?

Sawyer is not starting with a vision. He doesn't have an idea of what the system is supposed to accomplish. He just has a lot of opinions on how standard sub-systems (armor, magic, health and so on) have been done so far and how he'd like them to be done. It is him that has no starting point, no point of origin to which he can tie all the ideas he has for sub-systems. There is no larger picture for him, just a bunch of random ideas for sub-systems, and a fragile hope based on a blind belief that these sub-systems will create a great system when put together. That's not how it works.

Good sub-systems (if you actually believe a random developer is able to put together those almost on his lonesome) might make for an alright system... if they get lucky and everything fits together in spite of them having no idea whether they will, it might even produce a good system. But it is not the basis for making a great system; it is not a sound starting-point for system-design.

And this is, again, without discussing the fact that he is basically just a system-fan. He seems to have little experience with the professional side of system-design.

 

[Infinitron]

There is no larger picture for him, just a bunch of random ideas for sub-systems, and a fragile hope based on a blind belief that these sub-systems will create a great system when put together.

See, I'm not sure I agree with this. In my opinion, things like his post with the chess analogy show that he has a vision and a "larger picture". But visions like that are hard to articulate, and are not particularly useful for the average player that just wants to hear about the specific aspects and subsystems.

 

[Roguey]

"He seems to have little experience with the professional side of system-design" he says about a guy whose job has been game systems for the past decade.

Also I'm going to quote one of the so-called professional system designers Grunker respects so much

Magic also has a concept of "Timmy cards." These are cards that look cool, but aren't actually that great in the game. The purpose of such cards is to reward people for really mastering the game, and making players feel smart when they've figured out that one card is better than the other. While D&D doesn't exactly do that, it is true that certain game choices are deliberately better than others.

Toughness, for example, has its uses, but in most cases it's not the best choice of feat. If you can use martial weapons, a longsword is better than many other one-handed weapons. And so on -- there are many other, far more intricate examples. (Arguably, this kind of thing has always existed in D&D. Mostly, we just made sure that we didn't design it away -- we wanted to reward mastery of the game.)

Monte Cook is a moron. Only a moron would put bad choices in a system on purpose. Good thing Josh Sawyer isn't.

 

[mediocrepoet]

My argument is: Why would you do such a thing? Seriously, it's very simple: A system needs to form a greater whole. To do that, you can't make all the choices for your game design and then try to design a system around that. You need to start with a vision, then a system.

Look, you're saying: "Design the game, then make a system for it."

I'm saying: "Envision the game, pick a system, then make your game with it."

Your alternative is: "Envision the game, design a system, then make your game with it."

...

I cannot overstate this enough: A good system is a unified whole. A collection of rules that are all build on and correlate to each other. Not a bunch of game mechanics that work isolated from each other in some game developers mind.

I generally agree with you, Grunker. Still, I can't help but think that a decent system that was similar to a stand alone tabletop game in the sense of being comprehensive for all events that would come up in the game, yet made for being processed by a computer - so being able to calculate more variables quickly, etc. and not having to worry about getting bogged down by calculations of derivative attributes and such would (should?) be way cooler than anything based on a system made for sitting around a table with dice and friends. It could be worthwhile depending on the costs involved if the developer was going to base a game series around this system rather than only a single game.

Beyond that it's not clear to me that you're not, at points, conflating the strengths of tabletop systems in general (since they're made as the main attraction - no flashy graphics, voice actors, etc. to obscure gameplay elements) and the work that a live GM has when interacting with you since a person can be reactive to exactly what you want to do whereas a game can only do whatever the scripters and writers have already considered. Even in emergent gameplay situations where the player does things that the designer never intended or foresaw, it's always as a result of the tools given - but it isn't potentially limitless in the way that your actions can be when it is a player interacting directly with a skilled GM.

I would love to see RPGs get enough of a following that doesn't just "hate numbers" and such so that we might eventually see a solid CRPG system developed. I don't know that this will ever happen, however.