Josh Sawyer and Fun - DISCUSS

[Morality Games]

In real life the world's best swordsman would get mopped up by the ten-thousandth best swordsman and the ten-thousand-and-first best swordsman in cooperation 99% of the time

Not if he trained explicitly to fight people of that sort of middling skill.

Then like, uh, 70% he would lose.

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

As for "different approach", that's an odd question. It's an isometric game. You point and click and your character starts shooting at the enemy. There's not much room for "different approach" here.

Sure, but like I said, the non-Sawyerist approach to balancing results in such a different approach to playing the game, which makes it an at least somewhat meaningful choice. If the decision between speed and power doesn't actually result in a different approach to the game then why exactly is it preferable?

Guns take ages to reload, so you'll want to maximize the damage/accuracy/DR bypass of a single shot. Sensuki made a rather cool video:

That seems more like min-maxing, is there an actual difference in approach as a gun-character if you don't maximize damage? I suppose you'd target weaker enemies first or something, but anything else?

 

[Infinitron]

Sure, but like I said, the non-Sawyerist approach to balancing results in such a different approach to playing the game, which makes it an at least somewhat meaningful choice. If the decision between speed and power doesn't actually result in a different approach to the game then why exactly is it preferable?

Again, this has nothing to do with Sawyer. Plenty of RPGs have different stats for damage and accuracy.

Do you realize that what you're arguing for here is a system that just has a "DPS" stat, with no missing? High accuracy or high damage, what does it matter, right? In the end it's just about clicking and getting the enemy HP to go down to zero before yours goes down to zero.

 

[Athelas]

That seems more like min-maxing, is there an actual difference in approach as a gun-character if you don't maximize damage? I suppose you'd target weaker enemies first or something, but anything else?

Did you watch the video? He's letting party members use status-inflicting abilities to trigger sneak attacks for increasing damage. I guess you could also buff accuracy/debuff enemies to make them easier to hit.

 

[prodigydancer]

Banner Saga takes it to the next level, with a single stat that controls all damage AND your health.

In Banner Saga it made sense. I can't say the same about Might affecting pistol/gun damage.

 

[Morality Games]

In real life the world's best swordsman would get mopped up by the ten-thousandth best swordsman and the ten-thousand-and-first best swordsman in cooperation 99% of the time

Not if he trained explicitly to fight people of that sort of middling skill.

Then like, uh, 70% he would lose.

Then again, I don't know. Literatures in multiple historical contexts have consistently attested that warriors with a reputation as great fighters (famous Vikings, Miyamoto Musashi) were able to beat 2-3 people who ambushed them along the road or in an inn (sometimes 5+). The more a fight departs from the conventions of a duel the more likely superior tactics that allow one man to beat three will come into play.

 

[Infinitron]

Banner Saga takes it to the next level, with a single stat that controls all damage AND your health.

In Banner Saga it made sense. I can't say the same about Might affecting pistol/gun damage.

It affects your archers' damage in Banner Saga.

That seems more like min-maxing, is there an actual difference in approach as a gun-character if you don't maximize damage? I suppose you'd target weaker enemies first or something, but anything else?

Did you watch the video? He's letting party members use status-inflicting abilities to trigger sneak attacks for increasing damage. I guess you could also buff accuracy/debuff enemies to make them easier to hit.

I'm pretty sure Jim the Dinosaur has Fallout on the head and can't really conceptualize this in terms of a highly abstracted tactical party-based combat encounter. He's thinking about it in terms of how the individual character's combat "feel" is changed if he has high accuracy instead of high damage or vice versa. Like, some kind of essential difference in the way you play the character, irrespective of what sort of enemies he's facing.

I would say that if that's the sort of thing you're looking for, go play Dark Souls or some other action-RPG.

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

I'm pretty sure Jim the Dinosaur has Fallout on the head and can't really conceptualize this in terms of a highly abstracted tactical party-based combat encounter. He's thinking about it in terms of how the individual character's combat "feel" is changed if he has high accuracy instead of high damage or vice versa. Like, some kind of essential difference in the way you play the character, irrespective of what sort of enemies he's facing.

I would say that if that's the sort of thing you're looking for, go play Dark Souls or some other action-RPG.

So the point is that a low-damage stat character attacks weaker enemies or something? contextual stuff like that?

come on dude, convert me to Sawyerism

 

[prodigydancer]

In the end it's just about clicking and getting the enemy HP to go down to zero before yours goes down to zero.

It affects your archers' damage in Banner Saga.

BS is a (simple) tactical game, not a CRPG. In BS it's not about focusing enemies one by one - you need to have a plan. And can't ignore incoming Str damage because it cripples you.

 

[Athelas]

Strength affecting bow damage actually makes much more sense than the typical RPG convention of it being affected by dexterity or some such - you need to be strong to pull back those bow strings, after all.

 

[Infinitron]

I'm pretty sure Jim the Dinosaur has Fallout on the head and can't really conceptualize this in terms of a highly abstracted tactical party-based combat encounter. He's thinking about it in terms of how the individual character's combat "feel" is changed if he has high accuracy instead of high damage or vice versa. Like, some kind of essential difference in the way you play the character, irrespective of what sort of enemies he's facing.

I would say that if that's the sort of thing you're looking for, go play Dark Souls or some other action-RPG.

So the point is that a low-damage stat character attacks weaker enemies or something? contextual stuff like that?

The point is that the low damage character makes up for his low damage with something else. And it's not necessarily high accuracy, it could also be high defense or higher durations which would have a more obvious effect on one's playstyle.

But you asked specifically about damage vs accuracy and not those other things, in which case, yeah, it's basically contextual. It's not like an action-RPG where your high damage character would be some sort of sluggish brute and your high accuracy character would be some sort of fast, nimble hitter, that would each play and feel very differently.

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

But you asked specifically about damage vs accuracy and not those other things, in which case, yeah, it's basically contextual. It's not like an action-RPG where your high damage character would be some sort of sluggish brute and your high accuracy character would be some sort of fast, nimble hitter, that would each play and feel very differently.

I'm honestly not really sure why you keep referring to arpg's when you correctly noted I have a GURPS/Fallout type deal in mind. Here's my issue:

Regardless of any simulation objections, isn't there merit in substantive mechanical differences between different types of attacks (whether it's punches, pistols or magic missiles) by having attributes affect them in different ways? For all intents and purposes, pistols are just slow, long range punches in PoE which gives me the impression of a lack of variety.

But maybe this homogeneity leads to some interesting gameplay which you couldn't have with the more varied approach. It just sounds from what you're saying (and Sensuki's autism vids) that these interesting aspects manifest themselves mainly in minute tactical variations, which is maybe what turns so many people off who expect greater variety in terms of the effects of attributes (that's why I think making the attributes have larger quantitative effects won't make people more enthousiastic about the system).

 

[Infinitron]

I'm honestly not really sure why you keep referring to arpg's when you correctly noted I have a GURPS/Fallout type deal in mind.

OK, please explain to me how a character with "high damage stats" plays differently than an otherwise identical character with "high accuracy stats" in a GURPS/Fallout type non-ARPG.

which is maybe what turns so many people off who expect greater variety in terms of the effects of attributes

This particular issue is not what's turning them off. You can attack for more damage, but miss more, or attack for less damage, but miss less. The advantages and disadvantages are contextual depending on the enemy's defense capability. Every RPG works like this.

 

[Athelas]

Since the latest build, accuracy is actually no longer affected by attributes.

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

OK, please explain to me how a character with "high damage stats" plays differently than an otherwise identical character with "high accuracy stats" in a GURPS/Fallout type non-ARPG.

The point is that there wouldn't be a "high damage stat" to begin with, playing a high damage gun slinger or a high damage punches-things-er would both involve having high Might, but in the former case simply to allow penalties-free use of heavy guns, which you will first need to steal/buy/whatever. This type of difference in the way one attribute affects damage directly for one weapon type and indirectly/conditionally for another adds some variety. I'm not saying Sawyer should've followed this exact route, but I don't get the attraction of homogenizing attributes so that (it at least feels) there's very little variety to be found.

 

[Infinitron]

The point is that there wouldn't be a "high damage stat" to begin with

Why not? Why take away that choice from your players? You can add it on top of your simulationist encumberance mechanic for using heavy guns.

But nevermind, so let's say there's no damage stat for guns. So you use your high Might to pick up a heavy gun. Now how does your high Might, low accuracy character compare with say, a medium Might, medium accuracy character with a "medium-weight" rifle? Is that really so different? It's still all contextual. Use the heavy weapon on the slow, heavily armored enemy, use the rifle on the faster, less armored enemy.

 

[Perkel]

Hope someone will mod out that shit. This is straight diablo 3 design

From the Diablo 3 wiki:

Strength governs how much Armor a character has and increases Barbarian's damage dealt.
Dexterity governs the chance that a character will Dodge an attack and increases Demon Hunter's and Monk's damage dealt.
Intelligence increases a character's Resistances and increases Wizard's and Witch Doctor's damage dealt.
Vitality governs the amount of Life a character has.

I was talking more about how main stat works than 3 different stats. In reality in D3 there are only 2 stats. You main and vitality precisely because those stats are crucial compared to weapons or skills.

And it is broken system to this day. Games shouldn't mostly scale damage off stat because not doing it leads to weapon degradation and bloat.

 

[Athelas]

Hope someone will mod out that shit. This is straight diablo 3 design

From the Diablo 3 wiki:

Strength governs how much Armor a character has and increases Barbarian's damage dealt.
Dexterity governs the chance that a character will Dodge an attack and increases Demon Hunter's and Monk's damage dealt.
Intelligence increases a character's Resistances and increases Wizard's and Witch Doctor's damage dealt.
Vitality governs the amount of Life a character has.

I was talking more about how main stat works than 3 different stats. In reality in D3 there are only 2 stats. You main and vitality precisely because those stats are crucial compared to weapons or skills.

And it is broken system to this day. Games shouldn't mostly scale damage off stat because not doing it leads to weapon degradation and bloat.

Sure, but what does this have to do with the attribute design in PoE? The Diablo 3 method is how virtually every (c)RPG in existence handles it. If there's a stat that increases your DPS, you're gonna want to raise it for more damage. You do it by pumping weapon proficiencies and strength in the IE games (for more accuracy, damage and attacks per round), you do it by raising weapon skills and agility (for more action points) in Fallout, etc. The difference is that in PoE, you have to sacrifice something else to get that damage boost (since every attribute is useful) - which is a good thing.

 

[Roguey]

It was pretty keen in Arcanum how to be good with guns you had to put points in strength (to carry those heavy guns and all those bullets), dexterity (for action points), perception (to meet firearms requirements), firearms (to actually hit what you're aiming at of course), and very likely intelligence and a bit of explosives (to craft bullets) and gun smithy (to craft better guns).

Meanwhile if you wanted to use bows or throwing weapons you really just needed dexterity (for action points and to meet the requirements) and the respective skill. Also, contrary to the lore, guns are pretty garbage damage-wise compared to other weapons, especially in the early-game. Great job, Tim Cain, what excellent pseudo-sim trash you created.

 

[Shannow]

Don't see what this has to do with the Sawyer system. You could ask this about any system that has separate stats for damage and accuracy (which doesn't include AD&D btw, but you don't hear anybody complaining about the fact that being Dexterous doesn't help you hit people in Baldur's Gate, for some reason).

Either that, or you've ignored the various threads complaining about several features of D&D. Perhaps your codex back-log is "lacking". For some reason.

Strength affecting bow damage actually makes much more sense than the typical RPG convention of it being affected by dexterity or some such - you need to be strong to pull back those bow strings, after all.

You mean like in 3rd ed D&D? Where certain heavy draw bows required a minimum str value, and could add a limited amount of dmg bonus from str. Where dex only controlled accuracy.
I thought D&D was so borked that Sawyer had to re-invent the wheel.

On a slightly more serious note. Currently it looks like Sawyer did not reach his goal of perfect balance (thankfully). If he had, and all stats were equally important to all classes, I'd see little point in raising one over another. One could simply distribute them equally. Wouldn't matter much since overall every distribution would be equally "powerful". Which would mean, that Tron would really have his wish of a one-stat-game.

 

[Athelas]

On a slightly more serious note. Currently it looks like Sawyer did not reach his goal of perfect balance (thankfully). If he had, and all stats were equally important to all classes, I'd see little point in raising one over another. One could simply distribute them equally. Wouldn't matter much since overall every distribution would be equally "powerful". Which would mean, that Tron would really have his wish of a one-stat-game.

That wasn't actually the goal, it was attributes having at least *some* use regardless of your class.

Though this post makes it sound like you have never actually played an RPG in your life. Even if all stats are equally useful (insofar that can be measured), you still have to play to your build - a character with high defense is obviously going to be more valuable on the front line than in the back.

 

[Nihiliste]

Great job, Tim Cain, what excellent pseudo-sim trash you created.

You've gone too far now you filthy heathen

 

[Athelas]

That's a pretty fair point. You'd think weapons as lethal as guns would require the least skill rather than the most.

 

[prodigydancer]

You've gone too far now you filthy heathen

Roguey has a point. Arcanum isn't remembered for its class balance. It had a nice stepampunk setting and some interesting mechanics - I mean they were interesting in theory. But the implementation was terrible. If I had to choose between Arcanum combat and IWD combat I'd pick IWD any day of the week.

 

[Shannow]

On a slightly more serious note. Currently it looks like Sawyer did not reach his goal of perfect balance (thankfully). If he had, and all stats were equally important to all classes, I'd see little point in raising one over another. One could simply distribute them equally. Wouldn't matter much since overall every distribution would be equally "powerful". Which would mean, that Tron would really have his wish of a one-stat-game.

That wasn't actually the goal, it was attributes having at least *some* use regardless of your class.

Though this post makes it sound like you have never actually played an RPG in your life. Even if all stats are equally useful (insofar that can be measured), you still have to play to your build - a character with high defense is obviously going to be more valuable on the front line than in the back.

And we're right back around to square one. Attributes all had at least *some* use regardless of your class in OGL (which was in the discussion for PE). Sawyer's stated goal was to have perfect balance and have all stats being equally useful to all classes. Stop claiming otherwise. If those hadn't been his goals we could rip around 300 pages of PE discussion right out.
And the argument with "playing to you build"... Tron also tried that a few times. It right out contradicts the goal complete balance. Why would a fighter with
15
15
15
15
15
and random feats be less successful than
20
20
15
10
10
and feats built to synergize with themselves and perhaps other party members'? They should be equally "powerful" when "played" to their strengths. Anything else obviously wouldn't be completly balanced. Thankfully it seems like this will not be the case.
If the statements had been from the start:"I want all stats to have higher impact and be more important to every class than in OGL. And I want more similarly strong builds to be possible for different classes. More viable options than in OGL." Then there'd have been far less opposition. Still some, but overall less.
Now either he never managed to express his goals clearly and consistently, or he adapted and found a compromize between the retarded concept of complete balance and good RPG design. I don't really care which. I'm just happy that it seems like there will be builds and synergies that are clearly superior to others and not "balanced". That means there could be some fun with building a char.