So Dragon Age: Origins is rather fun so far

[Roguey]

Time is what matters, not the numbers involved.

That depends on your conception of what a 'Hitpoint' mean. And most conflate that with 'Health'.

It makes sense that a High Magic setting has these superhuman fighters who can withstand stronger blows and dodge a lot (AC). There, it also makes sense that their bodies are more resistant than what you'd expect (HP). And wether one or the other value is used to assert the enemies' power and (supposed) superiority over the player is a key difference of wether the world itself makes sense.

In the IE games, most enemies are as vulnerable as your characters. Indeed, both sides are quite vulnerable once you manage to hit the fighters and bring the enemies' defenses down. So while you may spen two whole rounds of 6 seconds dispelling the enemies' defenses or disabling their AC somehow, the fight's end is abrupt. It makes sense that the evil wizard, once his Stoneskin or whatever is dispelled, would actually suffer strikes of multiple fighters overwhelming him.

In DA:O, if you conflate Hitpoints with Health, then enemies are often strangely more powerful than you in a single way. Becoming a wonder why your character is the legendary hero. After all, its not just Grimdark Abominations and Dragons who have a stronger body than yours. Some nobody who happened to be flagged as a 'Lieutenant' enemy also does. That same wizard, let's call him Zathrian, doesn't need spell defenses since multiple strikes to his face won't dent his Health.

This seems to be some sort of fixation on pseudosimulation. Nothing about a game's rules has to "make sense."

 

[Infinitron]

Time is what matters, not the numbers involved.

That depends on your conception of what a 'Hitpoint' mean. And most conflate that with 'Health'.

It makes sense that a High Magic setting has these superhuman fighters who can withstand stronger blows and dodge a lot (AC). There, it also makes sense that their bodies are more resistant than what you'd expect (HP). And wether one or the other value is used to assert the enemies' power and (supposed) superiority over the player is a key difference of wether the world itself makes sense.

In the IE games, most enemies are as vulnerable as your characters. Indeed, both sides are quite vulnerable once you manage to hit the fighters and bring the enemies' defenses down. So while you may spen two whole rounds of 6 seconds dispelling the enemies' defenses or disabling their AC somehow, the fight's end is abrupt. It makes sense that the evil wizard, once his Stoneskin or whatever is dispelled, would actually suffer strikes of multiple fighters overwhelming him.

In DA:O, if you conflate Hitpoints with Health, then enemies are often strangely more powerful than you in a single way. Becoming a wonder why your character is the legendary hero. After all, its not just Grimdark Abominations and Dragons who have a stronger body than yours. Some nobody who happened to be flagged as a 'Lieutenant' enemy also does. That same wizard, let's call him Zathrian, doesn't need spell defenses since multiple strikes to his face won't dent his Health.

This seems to be some sort of fixation on pseudosimulation. Nothing about a game's rules has to "make sense."

Careful now Roguey, in Project Eternity enemies and players will have symmetric systems. It's a good thing because it forces the game designers to add depth to the system. HP sponges are a band-aid for bad design, much like cooldowns.

 

[Roguey]

Careful now Roguey, in Project Eternity enemies and players will have symmetric systems. It's a good thing because it forces the game designers to add depth to the system. HP sponges are a band-aid for bad design, much like cooldowns.

Josh also said everyone will have more HP in Eternity because attacks will happen much faster than once per 6 seconds and it'll be more hit-heavy than low-level D&D's miss-fest. He also has zero problems with cooldowns which are a perfectly acceptable balancing tool combined with some other resource.

Plus he's definitely not copying the "remove protections from a mage to kill it" design from BG2.

 

[Infinitron]

Careful now Roguey, in Project Eternity enemies and players will have symmetric systems. It's a good thing because it forces the game designers to add depth to the system. HP sponges are a band-aid for bad design, much like cooldowns.

Josh also said everyone will have more HP in Eternity because attacks will happen much faster than once per 6 seconds and it'll be more hit-heavy than low-level D&D's miss-fest.

Plus he's definitely not copying the "remove protections from a mage to kill it" design from BG2.

Fine but that's not relevant to what I said. The point is symmetric systems. Enemies have the same stats as you, same powers as you, same weaknesses as you. And if you can be killed quickly, so potentially can they.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

What the hell are 'fantastic creatures'?

Any "magical" being not included in the other categories, I suppose. Like...dunno, fairies. Fantastic creatures. I avoid them whenever I can, though. Fuck fairies and their fucking dust.

 

[Delterius]

This seems to be some sort of fixation on pseudosimulation. Nothing about a game's rules has to "make sense."

Sure, not every game developer or designer is that competent. To make a game's rules that achieve its objectives, as both entertainment and a milieu for storytelling just isn't easy. Sometimes its best to shoot low at poorly defined abstractionisms.

 

[Roguey]

This seems to be some sort of fixation on pseudosimulation. Nothing about a game's rules has to "make sense."

Sure, not every game developer or designer is that competent. To make a game's rules that achieve its objectives, as both entertainment and a milieu for storytelling just isn't easy. Sometimes its best to shoot low at poorly defined abstractionisms.

Psuedosim rules were, are, and always will remain terrible and wrongheaded.

Good thing Obsidian knows the score and not just Josh
http://forums.obsidian.net/blog/5/e...itude-and-the-responsibility-of-expectations/

Something that seems to frequently come up when discussing the design of a game system is whether or not some aspect of that system adheres to reality. Or, more precisely, whether the outcomes of that system accurately simulate the results that the person making the argument expects, based on their particular interpretation of reality.

Generally, these arguments come from players, or from non-designers, or less experienced designers, and will take the form of, "But XXXX isn't realistic!" or "Realistically, YYYY should happen instead". And, frequently, experienced game designers will turn around and say "Who cares?" and merrily go on their way designing an "unrealistic" system.

 

[Delterius]

Actually, I was just trying to sound like you. Was a bit of a cathartic experience.

Wether something aligns with our supposed reality matters little. Yet, unless you're making a game about dreams, odds are your systems and lore will ascribe to one reality, whichever it is. Thus, whatever single-minded rally against simulationism is foolish, simply because its logical conclusion is to rally against internal consistency itself. Games, and RPGs in particular, are as much simulations as the authors wish them to be, but they can't always be less than what is needed for the narrative focus of the game.

If narrative doesn't matter either, then great - go make Tetris. But if you want to tell a story, and in this particular universe magic-less Wizards are, for most intents, the equivalent of a civilian when compared to most every other type of adventurer, then they can't have Health bar that soaks slashes and thrusts for 10, 5 or even 2 minutes.

My comment cares little about obsessive simulationism. For I hardly couldn't care less about how not every single system doesn't make sense by itself or lacks a magical/fantastical/logical explanation to work (say, the inventory system). Not all systems are the narrative focus of the game. However, the battle system is. And it should align with the game's story.

 

[Roguey]

If narrative doesn't matter either, then great - go make Tetris. But if you want to tell a story, and in this particular universe magic-less Wizards are, for most intents, the equivalent of a civilian when compared to most every other type of adventurer, then they can't have Health bar that soaks slashes and thrusts for 10, 5 or even 2 minutes.

Sure they can. Your character isn't actually hitting them with their sword that many times. It's an abstraction.

You know what else has loads of hitpoints? 4th edition D&D.

 

[Zeriel]

You know what else is terrible? 4th edition D&D.

 

[Brayko]

I like the fact that choosing a human nets me three options: Noble, Mage, or rogue. Two of the three automatically place me as some nobles son at the start of the game. It's like, wtf?

 

[Roguey]

True, but it's still the best D&D ruleset and will continue to remain so when Next is released.

 

[Zeriel]

It is the best D&D ruleset because of HP bloat?

Okay.

 

[Tommy Wiseau]

Tommy agrees with Delterius. Want to make a game that only cares about its own internal consistency, realism be damned? Sure. But if you're going to expect the player to implicitly take your claim that certain things in the setting and game world are meant to behave precisely as they do in reality, then you should at least make the attempt of coming up with some believable abstractions for game mechanics.

 

[Delterius]

If narrative doesn't matter either, then great - go make Tetris. But if you want to tell a story, and in this particular universe magic-less Wizards are, for most intents, the equivalent of a civilian when compared to most every other type of adventurer, then they can't have Health bar that soaks slashes and thrusts for 10, 5 or even 2 minutes.

Sure they can. Your character isn't actually hitting them with their sword that many times. It's an abstraction.

Really? So I guess that a HP bloated enemy that can endure multiple critical attacks from a two handed sword is merely being scratched by it. HP Abstraction exists to relativize sub-par attack rolls, HP bloating exists to make sure it takes you a long time to kill something, in spite of your high attack rolls, which then would imply nothing less than massive damage.

But then again, someone though that fights that last a X amount of time was necessary for good fun, so whatever else be damned.

 

[sea]

Realism isn't necessarily important. Verisimilitude is. The consistency of a setting relies upon successful integration of game mechanics and presentation. As mentioned above, it makes no sense to have HP-bloated god-king heroes in a low magic, low fantasy setting that's trying to take itself seriously and markets itself as "mature." While it is not necessary for RPGs to approach simulation, depending on the particular game these can add a lot to an RPG, i.e. Planescape is not helped by being able to pick up every random object in the environment and carry it in your pack; yet the Elder Scrolls and Ultima games get a lot of mileage out of these simulation elements due to their much more player-directed focus. That's also why hacking away 50 times at a bandit in Oblivion is fucking stupid when otherwise the game attempts to create a realistic simulation-oriented world.

 

[GarfunkeL]

True, but it's still the best D&D ruleset and will continue to remain so when Next is released.

Holy shit you are deluded. Seek professional therapy.

 

[Infinitron]

Realism isn't necessarily important. Verisimilitude is. The consistency of a setting relies upon successful integration of game mechanics and presentation. As mentioned above, it makes no sense to have HP-bloated god-king heroes in a low magic, low fantasy setting that's trying to take itself seriously and markets itself as "mature." While it is not necessary for RPGs to approach simulation, depending on the particular game these can add a lot to an RPG, i.e. Planescape is not helped by being able to pick up every random object in the environment and carry it in your pack; yet the Elder Scrolls and Ultima games get a lot of mileage out of these simulation elements due to their much more player-directed focus. That's also why hacking away 50 times at a bandit in Oblivion is fucking stupid when otherwise the game attempts to create a realistic simulation-oriented world.

I sense an upcoming Gamasutra article...

 

[Suicidal]

Like many people here, I found Dragon Age fun at the beginning but as the game went on it was getting more and more tedious. Moreover, I was playing on nightmare difficulty (no idea why I chose to) and every enemy was a huge HP sponge, but just as stupid (attacking the target which I force-fielded while my archers and mages shot him from afar, killing each other with AOE spells and etc.).

The combat got so monotonous at some point - every fight consisted of killing an identical group of monsters: some small melee fighters, a few larger ones and some archers and it just went on forever. The loot was uninteresting too. The way the story progressed did not manage to grab me and I found only the very last bit interesting where you have to snoop around the capital city looking for proof that Loghain was a retard.

I wouldn't say DA:O is a bad game, but it's just painfully mediocre.

 

[Roguey]

Really? So I guess that a HP bloated enemy that can endure multiple critical attacks from a two handed sword is merely being scratched by it. HP Abstraction exists to relativize sub-par attack rolls, HP bloating exists to make sure it takes you a long time to kill something, in spite of your high attack rolls, which then would imply nothing less than massive damage.

Abstract. Everything you see is a lie. It doesn't mean much if something is easy to hit and has a lot of hitpoints or if it's hard to hit and has fewer or somewhere in between and has a lot of damage threshold to keep the numbers low, the end result's the same.

But then again, someone though that fights that last a X amount of time was necessary for good fun, so whatever else be damned.

If you don't think they took this same approach for the BG games, you're mistaken.

As mentioned above, it makes no sense to have HP-bloated god-king heroes in a low magic, low fantasy setting that's trying to take itself seriously and markets itself as "mature."

DA is a low magic, low fantasy setting? HP is not-serious and immature? News to me.

 

[Carrion]

Nothing about a game's rules has to "make sense."

Roguey in a nutshell. How do you make an informed tactical decision in a system that doesn't make sense?

In the IE games instead of whittling down points, you're missing most of the time. Or having to take down a bunch of protections and lowering their magic resistance before you can smash them. Or waiting the 6 seconds for your character to actually do something. Time is what matters, not the numbers involved.

You can kill Firkraag in a matter of seconds if you know what you're doing. Even if you spend a few minutes with that battle, you're still constantly doing different things during that time, starting with buffs, summons, anti-magic spells etc. before moving on to using damage-dealing spells and other fun stuff. Chances are you won't cast the same spell twice during the battle because Firkraag's state constantly changes as you strip away his protections or he casts new ones. Also, because your characters have a fairly low amount of hit points, the fight may take unexpected turns if one or more of your characters bites the dust after a critical hit, which adds a level of unpredictability and intensity that will keep you on your toes and may force you to change your strategy on the fly. (No doubt Sawyer hates such randomness.)

In DA:O you spend fifteen minutes chipping away the gigantic health bar of a dragon (can't remember their names, so just pick whatever fight you want to, they're all the same anyway) by doing the exact same things over and over and over again: tank it with the warrior and flank it with the rogue while the healer heals and the mage casts the same two or three spells again and again, or some other equally "interesting" tactic. The only exciting thing that could happen is running out of healing potions, because otherwise the fight is exactly the same every single time. Even if it only took one-tenth of the time that it does, it'd still be fucking terrible and boring because the only thing you're doing is optimizing your DPS and repeating the same actions ad nauseam.

Psuedosim rules were, are, and always will remain terrible and wrongheaded.

Could you tell me what Sawyer's opinion on Jagged Alliance 2 is?

 

[Roguey]

Roguey in a nutshell. How do you make an informed tactical decision in a system that doesn't make sense?

As long as the game rules are clearly communicated, there should be no problem.

You can kill Firkraag in a matter of seconds if you know what you're doing. Even if you spend a few minutes with that battle, you're still constantly doing different things during that time, starting with buffs, summons, anti-magic spells etc. before moving on to using damage-dealing spells and other fun stuff. Chances are you won't cast the same spell twice during the battle because Firkraag's state constantly changes as you strip away his protections or he casts new ones.

I don't remember this being a particularly involving. Breaches, lower resistances, smash, be sure to keep casters as far away as possible.

Also, because your characters have a fairly low amount of hit points, the fight may take unexpected turns if one or more of your characters bites the dust after a critical hit, which adds a level of unpredictability and intensity that will keep you on your toes and may force you to change your strategy on the fly. (No doubt Sawyer hates such randomness.)

Helmets protect against criticals.

In DA:O you spend fifteen minutes chipping away the gigantic health bar of a dragon (can't remember their names, so just pick whatever fight you want to, they're all the same anyway) by doing the exact same things over and over and over again: tank it with the warrior and flank it with the rogue while the healer heals and the mage casts the same two or three spells again and again, or some other equally "interesting" tactic. The only exciting thing that could happen is running out of healing potions, because otherwise the fight is exactly the same every single time. Even if it only took one-tenth of the time that it does, it'd still be fucking terrible and boring because the only thing you're doing is optimizing your DPS and repeating the same actions ad nauseam.

Reminds me of Firkraag. Furthermore

Psuedosim rules were, are, and always will remain terrible and wrongheaded.

Could you tell me what Sawyer's opinion on Jagged Alliance 2 is?

I don't think I've ever seen him discuss it. I imagine he thinks it's a good game. But of course an awesome game with a crappy ruleset would be better if it had a better ruleset.

 

[Tommy Wiseau]

Sorry, I want believable game mechanics: women starting out with -3 STR, -2 END, an extra point to Charisma modifiers against characters of the opposite sex with an INT rating of <5, and they can never raise their INT score past 7 (due to men having higher variability in IQ).

A game like that would be epic.

 

[Erebus]

Sorry, I want believable game mechanics: women starting out with -3 STR, -2 END, an extra point to Charisma modifiers against characters of the opposite sex with an INT rating of <5, and they can never raise their INT score past 7 (due to men having higher variability in IQ).

Which gender would have higher Wisdom ?

 

[Tommy Wiseau]

Sorry, I want believable game mechanics: women starting out with -3 STR, -2 END, an extra point to Charisma modifiers against characters of the opposite sex with an INT rating of <5, and they can never raise their INT score past 7 (due to men having higher variability in IQ).

Which gender would have higher Wisdom ?

The one responsible for most ancient and modern philosophy, of course.

Ideally, wisdom would be the same for the average character, but the maximum value (10, for example) should only be attainable by men. I would be inclined to argue that if the game would have a morality system, the highest value attainable should be limited by a person's INT score, since smarter people appear to have a stronger grasp on the matter of ethics.