As a rule of thumb: it's best for players to have as much options to tinker with as possible.
This latest discussion is kinda funny to me. One of Pathfinder: Kingmaker's critics was that it didn't have *enough* pause options: apparently the featured 24 autopause settings weren't enough to some. And yes, two of those included autopauses trigger when traps or hidden objects are spotted. So seeing comments defending the lack of pause really does make me chuckle.
An RPG should be about the character's skills not mine. It's his strength, dexterity, diplomacy, etc., and abit of luck sometimes, that should decide if a given task is successful inside the game not mine. In other words it should be my character skills that determine if s/he can open a locked chest not how fast I react to minigame or something like that.
If you have 100 autopause options turned on just play the game turn based. Even turn based games can use some autopause functions such as autopause on trap detection, for instance.
@Kamigoroshi The context matters. It's a deliberate decision in the D:OS games, and there are reasons for that - you have to get consequences of everything.
In RtwP games I like pauses. And I like there are no pauses in D:OS out of combat. These are different designs. One approach can't be for everything.
Btw, I usually never use auto pause, and turned it off in P:K. Maybe it's because I prefer to control everything myself. Kinda similar to disabling AI which I always do as well. Maybe there's something there related to my fondness of how D:OS plays.
@mlnevese I also don't like games where the player's dexterity matters, not character's.
It's different in D:OS. @ThacoBell I know you haven't played it and might have interpreted it wrongly. Here's an example:
Using in-game mechanic, your thief wasn't cautious enough, didn't wait enough, and triggered a trap. So you see a spell flying your way. In BG you as a player can pause and then run and leave the area, clicking enough to get away from the trap. It's not a thief who is getting away from the trap, it's the player. You can't do that in D:OS. You will have to react, healing the burning character. Or if the trap was lethal, your thief won't be able to outrun it due to the player clicking.
Using in-game mechanic, your thief wasn't cautious enough, didn't wait enough, and triggered a trap. So you see a spell flying your way. In BG you as a player can pause and then run and leave the area, clicking enough to get away from the trap.
That may be an option sometimes, but it's pretty rare for a trap to be close enough to an area transition for you to leave the game area before being hit.
In BG(2):EE there's also the option for the player to dodge out of the way of certain projectiles (Lightning Bolt), but not in the vanilla games. In vanilla, all traps hit you at least once, because the projectiles follow the character who triggered them.
An RPG should be about the character's skills not mine. It's his strength, dexterity, diplomacy, etc., and abit of luck sometimes, that should decide if a given task is successful inside the game not mine. In other words it should be my character skills that determine if s/he can open a locked chest not how fast I react to minigame or something like that.
You forgot intelligence. How often do you see being present with a puzzle that you, the player, has to solve yourself instead of selecting "[INT] *Solve the puzzle*"? Or the combat being 100% automatic and your character's AI dependent on his INT score?
Doesn't matter what game you're playing, it's still you who is playing, not your character, so it's your abilities only that matter. RPG usually focuses more on challenging player's intelligence instead of dexterity, but that's it.
Do they really? I'd say quite a few RPGs employ a real-time combat system, where the player's ability to mash the right buttons at the right time decides to success of a combat maneuver. Or even evading a trap. At least some games let you compensate, e.g. VtMB had celerity. But I never could get into TW series and that was one of the reasons: witchers are supposed to have inhumanly fast reflexes, whereas mine are rather turtle-like.
Well. In fairness - I might still categorize that broadly as player intelligence. Knowing the right skills to use in the right situation - especially if they're hot-keyed - seems m,ore like player strategy and understanding the mechanics and less dexterity.
Personally - I think any Isometric RPG should have pause. Wont kill me if they dont, but I dont see enough of a reason to remove it.
Yep, pause outside of combat would completely kill the feeling of risk when dealing with traps or when sneaking / thieving around. This is basically how Pillars of Eternity works, and while they're great games, they haven't really evolved much from what BG was in terms of thieving, traps, or aspects of dungeon crawling outside of combat. OTOH, the OS series has advanced the genre in a new and better direction here.
In fact, just speaking from my experience with the first game, this is strongest aspect of the game. The fact that you can use all your spells and all your items outside of combat, while also having to face severe non-combat risks, means that dungeon crawling is much more dynamic than it was in BG or even is in PoE.
As an additional thought, I think players should always stop themselves for a second when they're asking for a feature that will greatly lower a game's difficulty.
This is the height of selfishness self-centeredness. It's a damn single-player game. How I choose to play it has zero impact on your game. I find it outrageous and despicable that you think it is ok to deny a feature to me just because you don't like/want that feature and where nobody is forcing you to use that feature. Not being able to freely pause the game is stupid. Nothing's been "advanced" or "made better" by denying this feature to those who want it. It's just munchkin STUPID.
@Kamigoroshi The context matters. It's a deliberate decision in the D:OS games, and there are reasons for that - you have to get consequences of everything.
Yes it's a deliberate decision, making it all the more shitty that they did it that way. There is no story or gameplay benefit to it. The "reasons" offered for it are all entirely specious bs.
As for consequences, that's laughable. The D:OS games are all about no consequences that really matter. Kill anyone you want. But worry not. Your game and all quests won't be affected in any way. LOL. It's trashy soap-opera style gaming.
An RPG should be about the character's skills not mine. It's his strength, dexterity, diplomacy, etc., and abit of luck sometimes, that should decide if a given task is successful inside the game not mine. In other words it should be my character skills that determine if s/he can open a locked chest not how fast I react to minigame or something like that.
If you have 100 autopause options turned on just play the game turn based. Even turn based games can use some autopause functions such as autopause on trap detection, for instance.
None of this is true about RPG's if you think about it. Die and reload? Who figures out riddles in dialogues or puzzles? Who plans your combat strategies?
Just to add, I don't want an RPG that's just a bunch of stat checks on my characters. This is a slight problem with the PoE games, in that they created a great system with the text-based interludes but then litter solutions to the problems within with mere stat checks. The beauty of what Larian achieved with OS and the traps/puzzle elements is that it uses both character stat checks (perception, luck, thief skills) AND player input. It really is a genius aspect of the game.
This is the height of selfishness self-centeredness. It's a damn single-player game. How I choose to play it has zero impact on your game. I find it outrageous and despicable that you think it is ok to deny a feature to me just because you don't like/want that feature and where nobody is forcing you to use that feature. Not being able to freely pause the game is stupid. Nothing's been "advanced" or "made better" by denying this feature to those who want it. It's just munchkin STUPID.
Hmm... demanding that RPG designers make every game have YOUR preferred features... not at all selfish or self-centered.
My point wasn't about ME trying to influence your game btw. It was about the DESIGNERS choice to add a challenging aspect of their game.
The beauty of what Larian achieved with OS and the traps/puzzle elements is that it uses both character stat checks (perception, luck, thief skills) AND player input. It really is a genius aspect of the game.
And the genius of having pause/autopause options is that you can choose not to use them. Doesn't work the other way round.
Agreed.
In addition I fail to see the genius in it. You could say the same thing about the lockpicking minigames in Oblivion, Skyrim or disarming traps in Wiz 6 to 8.
And while I do not generally mind such elements, unlike Skyrim it clashes with the rest of the game design which is not based on player reflexes at all. In fact, one usual argument in favour of TB combat is that it is purely tactical in wheb it comes to player skill requirements.
It feels out of place, same as e.g. the catapult expansion for Carcasonne. Which makes it - at least to me - the opposite of genius.
The beauty of what Larian achieved with OS and the traps/puzzle elements is that it uses both character stat checks (perception, luck, thief skills) AND player input. It really is a genius aspect of the game.
And the genius of having pause/autopause options is that you can choose not to use them. Doesn't work the other way round.
I don't think the solution in every video game is to add a bunch of knobs where the player can select their difficulty. The proliferation of these things added to why Deadfire turned out so mediocre in my opinion.
I'm not saying it never works, but every game designer doesn't owe the fanbase adding all these settings -- which if you turn them on, make the game hugely easier. The Dark Souls series is a wonderful example of a game that has basically no difficulty or tuning settings, and because of that, they were able to make a tightly designed experience for the player. I think it's fine if Larian wants to do the same for OS.
The XCOM lead designer once said in an interview that one thing they focused on in the sequel was removing the strength of overwatch-creep from the game. I don't remember exactly what he said, but it was to the effect that if you give players an option that is overpowered, they will use that option over and over again, even if it makes the experience more tedious. I think this a valuable concept for designers to keep in mind, and I'm glad Larian commits to a vision of player experience.
Traps and dungeon puzzles generally suck in BG and the Pillars game in my opinion. There's no cleverness involved on the player's behalf, it's generally just a required stat allocation + the tedious chore of slowly moving through otherwise empty parts of the dungeon. OS hasn't exceeded those games in other aspects, but in traps, thieving, and puzzles it definitely has. And it's the realtime without pause that makes it a viable challenge and not a tedious chore.
Just one more quick point. The OS games are mod-friendly. Players committed to an easier experience in traps, etc department are free to download such a mod. So the argument that it "doesn't work the other way round" isn't true.
The beauty of what Larian achieved with OS and the traps/puzzle elements is that it uses both character stat checks (perception, luck, thief skills) AND player input. It really is a genius aspect of the game.
And the genius of having pause/autopause options is that you can choose not to use them. Doesn't work the other way round.
Agreed.
In addition I fail to see the genius in it. You could say the same thing about the lockpicking minigames in Oblivion, Skyrim or disarming traps in Wiz 6 to 8.
And while I do not generally mind such elements, unlike Skyrim it clashes with the rest of the game design which is not based on player reflexes at all. In fact, one usual argument in favour of TB combat is that it is purely tactical in wheb it comes to player skill requirements.
It feels out of place, same as e.g. the catapult expansion for Carcasonne. Which makes it - at least to me - the opposite of genius.
They're not really challenges that depend on reflex at all. They're more about careful decision making. Yes, you can potentially save a character from dying with your fast reflexes, but you often won't be able to do so.
You can have next to no good reflexes at all and conquer these elements of the game with perfection, so long as you're careful, clever, and learn some of the underlying systems in terms of character skills.
As someone who comes from p&p and prefers to use D&D games to emualte the p&p rounds I don't have, I have to say that I personally prefer a higher dependency on stats.
Thus the BG approch to traps, lockpicking and such is one I like, similiar the way your character needs good attributes to get good wishes via the two spells.
While the Skyrim approach has its benefits (mostly the ability to cheese through every lock...) I have to say it is not really to my liking.
About mods..
A game should be good *without* mods. Mod-friendliness is a bonus but nothing more.
This is one point Bethesda keeps, imho, missing. The developer makes a working, intresting game.
Mods are there to enhance subjective parts of the game, not to make the game itself interesting!
A decent game without mod support is better than a boring game which encourages modding.
About mods..
A game should be good *without* mods. Mod-friendliness is a bonus but nothing more.
This is one point Bethesda keeps, imho, missing. The developer makes a working, intresting game.
Mods are there to enhance subjective parts of the game, not to make the game itself interesting!
A decent game without mod support is better than a boring game which encourages modding.
Sorry, but that's something I couldn't possibly disagree more with.
Not only does a modding community prolong the life circle of a game (thus providing the developer far more long term revenue than otherwise). It is also a tool to keep customers invested in the franchise for future entries.
One other, less frequently named pluses of "mod friendliness", is that it can be the starting point for emerging future game developers. DragonLance Adventures of NwN's Wyvern Crown of Cormyr fame being a case in point. I'd also say that neither of the NwN titles would have been nearly as successful if it weren't thanks for their modability.
So, no. A subjectively "decent" game without mod support is faster forgotten than a subjectively "boring" game which encourages modding.
An RPG should be about the character's skills not mine. It's his strength, dexterity, diplomacy, etc., and abit of luck sometimes, that should decide if a given task is successful inside the game not mine. In other words it should be my character skills that determine if s/he can open a locked chest not how fast I react to minigame or something like that.
You forgot intelligence. How often do you see being present with a puzzle that you, the player, has to solve yourself instead of selecting "[INT] *Solve the puzzle*"? Or the combat being 100% automatic and your character's AI dependent on his INT score?
Doesn't matter what game you're playing, it's still you who is playing, not your character, so it's your abilities only that matter. RPG usually focuses more on challenging player's intelligence instead of dexterity, but that's it.
You have never played tabletop RPGs, I see
My 8 str wizard should be unable to lift a 500kg stone without magic or some clever plan, no matter how fast I can press buttons.
Besides, of course I as a player take the decisions but my character limitations should be taken in consideration. Games that affect how your character speaks depending on int or cha are doing it right as far as I am concerned.
About mods..
A game should be good *without* mods. Mod-friendliness is a bonus but nothing more.
This is one point Bethesda keeps, imho, missing. The developer makes a working, intresting game.
Mods are there to enhance subjective parts of the game, not to make the game itself interesting!
A decent game without mod support is better than a boring game which encourages modding.
Sorry, but that's something I couldn't possibly disagree more with.
Not only does a modding community prolong the life circle of a game (thus providing the developer far more long term revenue than otherwise). It is also a tool to keep customers invested in the franchise for future entries.
One other, less frequently named pluses of "mod friendliness", is that it can be the starting point for emerging future game developers. DragonLance Adventures of NwN's Wyvern Crown of Cormyr fame being a case in point. I'd also say that neither of the NwN titles would have been nearly as successful if it weren't thanks for their modability.
So, no. A subjectively "decent" game without mod support is faster forgotten than a subjectively "boring" game which encourages modding.
Oh, I agree that it will probably be forgotten faster, but that was not really my point.
I think the base game should be a higher priority than its potential.
If you make a game, the main focus should be the story or main campaign or whatever.
Because a game is good when it is, well good and not if it has a good potential for fans to make it good.
Baldurs Gate is a good game. That modding as possible is a plus. Multiplayer capabilities are a plus.
It garnered interest because BioWare made a good game. It got a fanbase that started modding the game to keep it fresh years after it came out. But it did not get raited high because it was modable or had multiplayer, but because the story was good and many liked the gameplay.
A game should be able to stand on its own feet and no company should hide behind user generated contend. Because if I pay 40-70€ for a game, I want to play a game and not get a level editor with a couple of sample levels.
Modding can improve a good game, but it should *never* be the *main* draw.
One of the main complaints toward the base NWN was exactly that.
BW made a great editor and encouraged user generated content - but its main campaign was seen as.. not very good. SoU and HotU made it a good *game* instead of a good *toolbox*.
Or in other words, when I buy Baldurs Gate 3 I want to pop it in and enjoy it and not have to wait for you to make mods that make the game worthwhile.. ;-)
To me, modding is not very interesting anymore since I have no time to invest in second run throughs. I can barely replay bg as it is and I still have plenty of games to finish.
If the game is not engaging enough (like nwn) I will never get past chapter 2 and it goes into the forget-me bin.
Note that bg1 was very unmoddable in the early days except for the Ai scripting that was supplied with the game. I play(ed) it more vanilla than modded. It is that good for me.
Mods certainly extend the life of a game but if the base game is trash nobody will bother to mod it.
Ehhh... I don't know. There were also folks which tried to mod Sword Coast Legend after all. Though that game not only failed to deliver in the story department. It didn't even provide a fully functioning toolbox for people to tinker with. If at least the latter would have been there, chances are that Digital Extremes as a game developing studio would still exist.
While investing in engaging gameplay is indeed one path to success for a video game, it's by far not the only one.
I think the base game should be a higher priority than its potential.
If you make a game, the main focus should be the story or main campaign or whatever.
Because a game is good when it is, well good and not if it has a good potential for fans to make it good.
I agree with a ton of the sentiment in this post, and I didn't bring up mod friendliness to say it's a priority, but merely that it is akin to having built-in options. The sentiment that the core game experience is the priority, imo, also applies to the idea of adding a proliferation of optional gameplay styles, difficulty settings, and other knobs.
I'd rather designers focus on making all the things you experience in a single playthrough as fun as possible as opposed to inserting a bunch of different options and features. And alternate play styles or options will have to be balanced separately, meaning your sinking labor into aspects of the game that only some players experience. I think it's far better to launch a game with a singular vision of player experience, but be mod-friendly, than a non-mod friendly game with all kinds of tweakable settings.
Comments
This latest discussion is kinda funny to me. One of Pathfinder: Kingmaker's critics was that it didn't have *enough* pause options: apparently the featured 24 autopause settings weren't enough to some. And yes, two of those included autopauses trigger when traps or hidden objects are spotted. So seeing comments defending the lack of pause really does make me chuckle.
An RPG should be about the character's skills not mine. It's his strength, dexterity, diplomacy, etc., and abit of luck sometimes, that should decide if a given task is successful inside the game not mine. In other words it should be my character skills that determine if s/he can open a locked chest not how fast I react to minigame or something like that.
If you have 100 autopause options turned on just play the game turn based. Even turn based games can use some autopause functions such as autopause on trap detection, for instance.
In RtwP games I like pauses. And I like there are no pauses in D:OS out of combat. These are different designs. One approach can't be for everything.
Btw, I usually never use auto pause, and turned it off in P:K. Maybe it's because I prefer to control everything myself. Kinda similar to disabling AI which I always do as well. Maybe there's something there related to my fondness of how D:OS plays.
It's different in D:OS. @ThacoBell I know you haven't played it and might have interpreted it wrongly. Here's an example:
Using in-game mechanic, your thief wasn't cautious enough, didn't wait enough, and triggered a trap. So you see a spell flying your way. In BG you as a player can pause and then run and leave the area, clicking enough to get away from the trap. It's not a thief who is getting away from the trap, it's the player. You can't do that in D:OS. You will have to react, healing the burning character. Or if the trap was lethal, your thief won't be able to outrun it due to the player clicking.
Hope this will explain why I like that.
That may be an option sometimes, but it's pretty rare for a trap to be close enough to an area transition for you to leave the game area before being hit.
In BG(2):EE there's also the option for the player to dodge out of the way of certain projectiles (Lightning Bolt), but not in the vanilla games. In vanilla, all traps hit you at least once, because the projectiles follow the character who triggered them.
Doesn't matter what game you're playing, it's still you who is playing, not your character, so it's your abilities only that matter. RPG usually focuses more on challenging player's intelligence instead of dexterity, but that's it.
Well. In fairness - I might still categorize that broadly as player intelligence. Knowing the right skills to use in the right situation - especially if they're hot-keyed - seems m,ore like player strategy and understanding the mechanics and less dexterity.
Personally - I think any Isometric RPG should have pause. Wont kill me if they dont, but I dont see enough of a reason to remove it.
This is the height of selfishness self-centeredness. It's a damn single-player game. How I choose to play it has zero impact on your game. I find it outrageous and despicable that you think it is ok to deny a feature to me just because you don't like/want that feature and where nobody is forcing you to use that feature. Not being able to freely pause the game is stupid. Nothing's been "advanced" or "made better" by denying this feature to those who want it. It's just munchkin STUPID.
Yes it's a deliberate decision, making it all the more shitty that they did it that way. There is no story or gameplay benefit to it. The "reasons" offered for it are all entirely specious bs.
As for consequences, that's laughable. The D:OS games are all about no consequences that really matter. Kill anyone you want. But worry not. Your game and all quests won't be affected in any way. LOL. It's trashy soap-opera style gaming.
None of this is true about RPG's if you think about it. Die and reload? Who figures out riddles in dialogues or puzzles? Who plans your combat strategies?
Just to add, I don't want an RPG that's just a bunch of stat checks on my characters. This is a slight problem with the PoE games, in that they created a great system with the text-based interludes but then litter solutions to the problems within with mere stat checks. The beauty of what Larian achieved with OS and the traps/puzzle elements is that it uses both character stat checks (perception, luck, thief skills) AND player input. It really is a genius aspect of the game.
Hmm... demanding that RPG designers make every game have YOUR preferred features... not at all selfish or self-centered.
My point wasn't about ME trying to influence your game btw. It was about the DESIGNERS choice to add a challenging aspect of their game.
Agreed.
In addition I fail to see the genius in it. You could say the same thing about the lockpicking minigames in Oblivion, Skyrim or disarming traps in Wiz 6 to 8.
And while I do not generally mind such elements, unlike Skyrim it clashes with the rest of the game design which is not based on player reflexes at all. In fact, one usual argument in favour of TB combat is that it is purely tactical in wheb it comes to player skill requirements.
It feels out of place, same as e.g. the catapult expansion for Carcasonne. Which makes it - at least to me - the opposite of genius.
I don't think the solution in every video game is to add a bunch of knobs where the player can select their difficulty. The proliferation of these things added to why Deadfire turned out so mediocre in my opinion.
I'm not saying it never works, but every game designer doesn't owe the fanbase adding all these settings -- which if you turn them on, make the game hugely easier. The Dark Souls series is a wonderful example of a game that has basically no difficulty or tuning settings, and because of that, they were able to make a tightly designed experience for the player. I think it's fine if Larian wants to do the same for OS.
The XCOM lead designer once said in an interview that one thing they focused on in the sequel was removing the strength of overwatch-creep from the game. I don't remember exactly what he said, but it was to the effect that if you give players an option that is overpowered, they will use that option over and over again, even if it makes the experience more tedious. I think this a valuable concept for designers to keep in mind, and I'm glad Larian commits to a vision of player experience.
Traps and dungeon puzzles generally suck in BG and the Pillars game in my opinion. There's no cleverness involved on the player's behalf, it's generally just a required stat allocation + the tedious chore of slowly moving through otherwise empty parts of the dungeon. OS hasn't exceeded those games in other aspects, but in traps, thieving, and puzzles it definitely has. And it's the realtime without pause that makes it a viable challenge and not a tedious chore.
They're not really challenges that depend on reflex at all. They're more about careful decision making. Yes, you can potentially save a character from dying with your fast reflexes, but you often won't be able to do so.
You can have next to no good reflexes at all and conquer these elements of the game with perfection, so long as you're careful, clever, and learn some of the underlying systems in terms of character skills.
Thus the BG approch to traps, lockpicking and such is one I like, similiar the way your character needs good attributes to get good wishes via the two spells.
While the Skyrim approach has its benefits (mostly the ability to cheese through every lock...) I have to say it is not really to my liking.
About mods..
A game should be good *without* mods. Mod-friendliness is a bonus but nothing more.
This is one point Bethesda keeps, imho, missing. The developer makes a working, intresting game.
Mods are there to enhance subjective parts of the game, not to make the game itself interesting!
A decent game without mod support is better than a boring game which encourages modding.
Not only does a modding community prolong the life circle of a game (thus providing the developer far more long term revenue than otherwise). It is also a tool to keep customers invested in the franchise for future entries.
One other, less frequently named pluses of "mod friendliness", is that it can be the starting point for emerging future game developers. DragonLance Adventures of NwN's Wyvern Crown of Cormyr fame being a case in point. I'd also say that neither of the NwN titles would have been nearly as successful if it weren't thanks for their modability.
So, no. A subjectively "decent" game without mod support is faster forgotten than a subjectively "boring" game which encourages modding.
You have never played tabletop RPGs, I see
My 8 str wizard should be unable to lift a 500kg stone without magic or some clever plan, no matter how fast I can press buttons.
Besides, of course I as a player take the decisions but my character limitations should be taken in consideration. Games that affect how your character speaks depending on int or cha are doing it right as far as I am concerned.
Oh, I agree that it will probably be forgotten faster, but that was not really my point.
I think the base game should be a higher priority than its potential.
If you make a game, the main focus should be the story or main campaign or whatever.
Because a game is good when it is, well good and not if it has a good potential for fans to make it good.
Baldurs Gate is a good game. That modding as possible is a plus. Multiplayer capabilities are a plus.
It garnered interest because BioWare made a good game. It got a fanbase that started modding the game to keep it fresh years after it came out. But it did not get raited high because it was modable or had multiplayer, but because the story was good and many liked the gameplay.
A game should be able to stand on its own feet and no company should hide behind user generated contend. Because if I pay 40-70€ for a game, I want to play a game and not get a level editor with a couple of sample levels.
Modding can improve a good game, but it should *never* be the *main* draw.
One of the main complaints toward the base NWN was exactly that.
BW made a great editor and encouraged user generated content - but its main campaign was seen as.. not very good. SoU and HotU made it a good *game* instead of a good *toolbox*.
Or in other words, when I buy Baldurs Gate 3 I want to pop it in and enjoy it and not have to wait for you to make mods that make the game worthwhile.. ;-)
If the game is not engaging enough (like nwn) I will never get past chapter 2 and it goes into the forget-me bin.
Note that bg1 was very unmoddable in the early days except for the Ai scripting that was supplied with the game. I play(ed) it more vanilla than modded. It is that good for me.
Ehhh... I don't know. There were also folks which tried to mod Sword Coast Legend after all. Though that game not only failed to deliver in the story department. It didn't even provide a fully functioning toolbox for people to tinker with. If at least the latter would have been there, chances are that Digital Extremes as a game developing studio would still exist.
While investing in engaging gameplay is indeed one path to success for a video game, it's by far not the only one.
I agree with a ton of the sentiment in this post, and I didn't bring up mod friendliness to say it's a priority, but merely that it is akin to having built-in options. The sentiment that the core game experience is the priority, imo, also applies to the idea of adding a proliferation of optional gameplay styles, difficulty settings, and other knobs.
I'd rather designers focus on making all the things you experience in a single playthrough as fun as possible as opposed to inserting a bunch of different options and features. And alternate play styles or options will have to be balanced separately, meaning your sinking labor into aspects of the game that only some players experience. I think it's far better to launch a game with a singular vision of player experience, but be mod-friendly, than a non-mod friendly game with all kinds of tweakable settings.