The New World Interview
-
Category: News ArchiveHits: 1439
Vince D. Weller, or Vault Dweller if you prefer, has recently participated in an interview with a Russian gaming website GoHa.ru. The interview mostly focused on Iron Tower Studio's current project – The New World, and Vince's take on RPG design in general. Fortunately, the interview is also available in English (just click the "+" sign near the top of the page). Here are a couple of sample questions:
2 The most common complain about AoD that I've stumbled upon is that it's all about min-maxing. You either have a "perfect" build or you cannot do this, that and that. Many people want to get as much content as possible with a single character, which requires the above mentioned "perfect" build. What are your thoughts on it and how do you plan to deal with it in The New World?"
These are two separate issues. When a player struggles to beat the first few opponents, he assumes – incorrectly – that the only way to beat game is to max the physical stats at the expense of everything else and put all skill points into two skills (weapon and defense). Stats and skills do matter, of course, but tactics matter more.
The max content build is a more complex issue, driven by the player’s desire to get more content in the course of one game, which requires a whole lot of meta-gaming and a carefully researched build, calibrated down to the last skill point. Needless to say it’s not a fun way to play the game.
There are two ways to fix it: either remove most checks, leaving only “cosmetic” checks that give you minor rewards but ultimately change nothing OR replace manual distribution of skill points with an ‘increase by use’ system.
Naturally, the former isn’t an option for us, but the latter is something that fits our overall design (and the party-based setup) better. Now your skills will be determined by your actions and choices not arbitrary distribution of the skill points.
Instead of counting how many times you did something, we’ll assign a certain value (let’s call it learning points) to each activity (attacking, killing, fixing, sneaking, convincing, lying, etc). So killing a tough enemy or repairing a reactor will net you more points than killing a weakling or fixing a toaster. Basically, it will work the same way as XP but go directly toward raising the skill that did all the work.
3 While playing AoD with a "full-combat" build (all points in combat skills, zero in social) I had no trouble fighting my way through the game and killing anyone I wanted. Combat in general became a walk in the park, except for a few late-game encounters. Now, I get that the game was designed to have the hybrid builds the hardest to play as, but what's your view on that in The New World?
How difficult would the combat playthrough be for the combat-oriented party with as little social skills as possible? Will it give us a challenge?
For every person who was able to kill everything that moved there were hundreds of players who struggled and a few dozen who failed to kill anything at all. The #1 complaint is “combat is too difficult”, so we aren’t in a rush to make The New World more difficult.
However, the nature of the setting does call for more challenging fights since you’ll be going against factions with plenty of firepower, which means you’ll be outgunned and outnumbered most of the time. In practical terms, it means more fights like the mining outpost and fewer fights like [insert fights you managed to beat without nearly running out of your HPs].
[...]
7 Let's talk about your companions' personalities for a bit. Age of Decadence was not a party-based game and although it featured a couple of really memorable NPCs (Miltiades, Benny, lords of Great Houses) realistic relationships with NPCs wasn't - in my opinion - its strongest point.
No arguing here.
Now, with TNW you obviously have chosen to focus on party-interactions and dynamics with our future companions being psychotic paranoics, racists, religious fanatics, and so on. Using your own words, companions will have “their own beliefs, agendas, and personality traits". I assume it's not easy for you as a writer to switch from a lack of party interaction mechanics to writing and thinking through carefully 12 (!) companions at once? Are you sure you could handle and deliver it?
In my arrogance ignorance I don’t really see it as a big deal. I see it as 12 fairly complex NPCs, which, considering the number of NPCs in AoD, is neither a monumental nor radically different task.
Our goal here isn’t to give you 12 lifelong friendships (which IS a monumental task) or deep and meaningful relationships but to give you 12 companions who may or may not make your life easier. Hint: probably not.
Let’s consider a typical RPG premise. You need to do something awesome but very dangerous, so you get yourself some allies with diverse skillsets. A fighter of great renown to hold the forces of evil at bay. A nimble thief to sneak in and out and open chests ripe with loot. A bearded wizard, perhaps, to cast a spell or two and shout “You shall not pass!” when an opportunity presents itself.
In a typical RPG these compadres are loyal to a fault and accept your leadership without hesitation. In reality, this situation might play out a bit different.
Imagine you want to do something profitable but very dangerous in real life. You need some muscle, so you hire a guy who did some time for murder (a fighter of great renown!), a guy who robbed a few banks (a nimble thief!), and a neckbeard who claims to be a hacker (a bearded wizard!). Hardly a fellowship you had in mind. You still need them but the odds that things will go the way you imagined are fairly low.
Throw in the above mentioned different personality traits, religious beliefs or intolerance, and agendas, and you have the full picture.
That’s the goal and I’m pretty sure we can do that.
8 I'd like to elaborate a little on what I meant by 'party interactions'. How big of a role would our companions' alignment and personal quirks have during the game? Let's assume you have a religious fanatic and a man who hate them in your party. Will they stand each other? Would they want to kill each other on sight or after some replies?
It depends on their personalities. At best they’d refuse to work together, at worst you’d have to pick sides and one of them would end up dead. It’s a bit more complex than that though.
Let’s say you run into a wounded man preparing for his last stand. A rival gang of scavengers is looking for him. He asks you to help him, offering to share something valuable with you.
If you have Evans with you, he’d say that it’s too dangerous and the reward isn’t worth it. If you insist, he’ll leave you and you’d have to defend your new friend all by yourself (or follow Evans). If you have Garrett with you, he’ll shoot the man and take all he had (he’s a practical man). If you have Jed with you, he’d see a business opportunity and offer to trade the man to the other crew, etc.
[...]
16 Main quest. Some people like to do the side-quests first, delaying touching the main quest till the last possible moment and some jump straight to it, right until the point of no return. What approach do you have in mind designing the main quest for your game?
We’ll go with a chapter structure again. For example, when you start the game, you’ll have 4 locations available to you: the Pit (container town), the Factory, the Hydroponics, and the Armory. Your main quest goal is the Armory but to get there you’ll have to increase your skills first.
Other locations won’t be magically sealed but to get through the Wasteland will require much higher skills and to get into the Habitat will require a reason (for the guards to let you in), which the Armory will provide. All locations are interconnected (unlike AoD), so once you cross the Wasteland, other locations will open up, etc.
How hard it is to think of all the possible ways people would interact with it?
We try to offer as many options as we can and pray it will be enough.
