MortyTheGobbo

Statistically speaking, it's not terribly likely to survive a Biawac and then just happen to run into the leader of the Leaden Key going about sinister business. High fantasy RPGs have never exactly run on what's statistically likely to happen. Fiction and fantasy is often about the unlikely or fated person which happened to come up against the unlikely. That doens't mean they will continue coming up against purely the unlikely, in a world that for the story to work is mostly filled with likely things. It works for MMOs where everyone is the unlikely hero, and the rare person is serving or breeding. This is statistically speaking. I suppose at least once though someone will roll nothing but D20s for a campaign, but it'd actually become quite a trying campaign after a while. It wasn't a very good comparison, I suppose. My point is that insisting on statistical probability when it comes to the number of LGBT characters in a game is misplaced at best. Statistics concerning the percentage of population who are of any given orientation are sketchy, because of how many people are unaware of theirs or won't admit it. And it's not like they're spread out evenly, anymore than any other trait is. In other words, let the writers include however many of them they feel like. Meeting a hundred gay people in a game is pretty ridiculous hyperbole, anyway. Adding more than two is already looked askance at.

Statistically speaking, it's not terribly likely to survive a Biawac and then just happen to run into the leader of the Leaden Key going about sinister business. High fantasy RPGs have never exactly run on what's statistically likely to happen.

We know Deadfire will contain party members who are openly non-heterosexual. The setting already contains people corresponding to different real-world ethnicities, rather than everyone being European. The themes of racism and sexism have been brought up, though admittedly the racism is entirely fictional - Orlan are discriminated against, rather than people of any given skin colour. But the issues Pallegina dealt with back home, or the nonsense Durance spouts on a regular basis, are much closer to reality. So... according to the standards of most people who fret about "SJW writing", I'd say the game is already a lost cause. But it seems the goalposts have shifted, and the mere inclusion of diverse characters and viewpoints is no longer "pandering", whatever that even means to begin with. So what exactly are you worried will happen? I'd like to see some concrete examples for once.

I really don't see it as any different than the Might attribute, the reduced party size or any other thing people feel strongly about and discuss frequently. Isn't that what this place is for?

Thin on the ground, as in rare.

You forgot how loud minorities can be. If you show their unsightly side, there will be SJW sh*tstorm. We don't want it for Pillars, are we? I've seen a great deal more complaining about what "those darn SJWs" will surely do than any actual complaints from that side of the spectrum, regarding Pillars. Without getting into what some hypothetical people might hypothetically do, I agree that avoiding stereotypes can be pushed too far. Josh addresses it directly in his post, pointing towards actual gay people who wouldn't mind a "stereotypical" gay character, because why not? It would certainly be easier if LGBT characters in games weren't so thin on the ground that every one that does appear is held up as representing the whole demographic. But it's not exactly something Obsidian can do much about.

This has literally been true in one BW title, and only in the sense that all four romance options swung both ways. Also, even if Iselmyr somehow affecting Aloth's orientation wasn't ridiculous enough, she might not be straight to begin with. She quite possibly hits on Pallegina, for one thing. Unless it's like FlintlockJazz says, and she simply encourages Aloth to do so.

That's a pretty measured response. This is a pretty tricky situation and I think their approach is the right one. Now we just have to see how it pans out.

Worrying about almost everything strikes me as a useful attitude in beta testing. If not so much elsewhere.

I think in Pallegina's case it's personal offence and grief turned into a philosophical issue. She came to view the ostracism she suffered - particularly in the patriarchal Vaillan society, where being infertile makes her not a woman - as a result of the gods' meddling. They altered her life and those of other godlike, and they're not accountable for it in any way. Kind of hard to argue with that, honestly.

As useful as an open beta can be, it runs into the problem of most people having no idea how beta or playtesting actually work.

Also, YouTube creators want views. And a video attacking Deadfire - or anything else, for that matter - will get more clicks and talk than one methodically picking apart the good and the bad. Any open beta is going to be a lot of garbled noise and part of the designers' job is to filter out the valuable feedback.

If that's your only comeback to my arguments, this discussion seems to be over. I'll let others decide which one of us carried themselves better in it.

In BG everything was in percentages and rogues had most skill points than any other class to spend on skills. So even low, you had a chance to succeed in a task, in POE if you don't meet the threshold you're screwed. And since rogue was the most skill based class in BG it had more than enough points to be good at any rogue based task after a few level ups, especially with generously available buffs from consumables and gear (some gave a whooping 50% boost). As for Deadfire skills - you barely scrape enough points for 2 skills for a rogue to be able to do all tasks related to them, while larger half of purely roguish skills are left behind. On the flipside, a random chance in skills means you can blow it even if you're good at it. And unlike with combat attacks and abilities, you don't usually get a redo, unless you abuse quicksaving. Maybe the game could make it work, but it'd require something completely different. If Deadfire has insufficient skill points to get a good selection of non-combat skills, the answer is to increase them. Tying them down to an attribute would be more trouble than it'd be worth.

I've been providing you with arguments in the other thread on the subject, and so have others. In return, you mostly gave us insults and repeated demands that either we agree with your absolutist statements or are stupid, delusional etc. You really don't have the moral or intellectual high ground here. You're getting unreasonably angry about fictional numbers in a fictional video game and trying to paint others as the emotional, unreasonable ones.

Just because you dismiss your opponents' arguments as "vague non-argument" doesn't mean that's all there is. It just means that's all your acknowledge, while repeatedly asserting things you believe to be true. The only one I see here with a personal, ego-driven stake in the argument is you. You've propped D&D attributes up on a pedestal and aggressively attack any departure from them, while praising them for virtues they don't have and have never had.

I'm not married to the concept of a "might" attribute, but it's a solution to a very common problem with systems that use a traditional "strength" one. Though not a very elegant one. I feel like merging strength and constitution, then spreading damage bonuses for different sources thereof might have been better... but it's a few years too late for that. Besides, splitting damage types across different attributes begs the question of where we draw the line. A greatsword uses strength for damage, but what about a rapier? Dagger? Sabre?

- If you're talking about concepts, then D&D stats aren't special. Or any more rooted in reality than any other attribute system out there. They're all vague approximations that are meant to serve the game's particular needs. Even the problem with dexterity being too broad and strength being too narrow is pretty common. The only really unique quirk is treating wisdom as a viable attribute. - Yes, it's so incredibly easy no game has actually done that. The closest we've ever got was Fallout's low-intelligence dialogue. Planescape: Torment, the crown jewel of RPGs for some, certainly doesn't do any of that. It rewards you for high scores... mental ones, that is. There's some occasional dialogue for high Strength or Dexterity, but nothing for Constitution. Nothing special for low scores... in fact, it doesn't even let you drop them below 9 in character generation. What you're talking about is a tremendous amount of work for writers and programmers, all for content that few players will ever see... in fact, it's content you want to discourage people from ever seeing. - Can you try to make your argument without adding some slippery slope about what I clearly want, even though I never said anything of the sort? Not using the word "retarded" would also be nice. I've managed to argue without insulting you or using slurs. In Pillars, I played a fighter who invested more in dexterity and perception than in might, and that was fine. You don't have to do it if you don't want that. A character with a strength/might/whatever of 10 isn't "too weak to lift their own weapon", either. They're simply not strong enough to strike particularly hard. I simply made a choice to focus on speed of attacks and accuracy more than raw damage per attack. Also, the dreaded hypothetical you try to foist on me actually exists. Plenty of games, tabletop or video, don't use a "strength" attribute. Or attributes at all. That doesn't make them lack for choices and options. You might want to check out the Song of Ice and Fire tabletop RPG, a very crunchy and involved system where there are no attributes, just a list of abilities. - "Fundamental", "obvious", "anyone"... you keep using large quantifiers to avoid having to back up your argument. Which I have done - I've given you examples of characters for whom willpower and perception do not go hand in hand. A thief can have sharp senses and semi-paranoid awareness, while being a weak-willed coward. A knight will have steadfast resolve while being slow on the uptake. A ranger is very perceptive but their willpower isn't remarkable one way or the other. I can go on. Do you have counter-examples, or will you just keep saying how obvious it is? - Here you go with accusing me of trolling or being delusional. Again. Let's just move on. Pillars' attributes are a bog-standard RPG set. The only remarkable one is Might. Everything else... Dexterity, Perception, Constitution, Intellect, Resolve. I've seen them time and again. Might is the only noteworthy case, because it tries to deal with the likewise common problem of "strength" being a dump stat for all but some character concepts. It ends up a pretty clunky method, but that's what the designers chose to go with. It's not as big a deal as people make it out to be.

It never has before, not sure why it would suddenly start now.

I don't see how those two things are mutually exclusive. If you decide that the unique pre-crafted item isn't worth picking up, you'll end up without it. Also, magic bags. The unique items are more valuable if you are facing the limitations of a limited inventory/carry capacity. When it comes to unique pre-designed items, less is more, to a certain degree. If there are too many unique items, then the unique items lose their novelty. You know, special not being special anymore. I think there are two camps in this regard; people who want a proper inventory management and people like Morty who don't want inventory at all. The sad reality I think is that there is no real compromise between the two, anything less than real inventory management won't sit well with those who want it as a part of their experience, and any inventory hassle is too much for the people who don't, which is why I'd say the design team should pick one option and stick with it. Either eliminate inventory almost completely like in ME2, or have a proper limited carry capacity inventory tetris. Either of those choices would be better than what was in PoE in my opinion; either commit to inventory being a core part of the game experience, or don't do it at all. No one really likes a compromise, they just say they do because they hate controversy. That's true, but not entirely. I do think games should either make inventory management central to the experience or not bother. But I don't consider Pillars' way of doing it to be meaningfully different from other RPGs, such as Baldur's Gate, Fallout, Witcher etc. Either way, you're picking up a ton of loot, selling most of it and saving a few pieces for yourself. Some games just put an arbitrary limit on how much, which is still leagues above what any real person or small group could carry. Games with meaningful inventory management... the one I've played relatively recently is Darkest Dungeon. STALKER also does it, but it's been a while. Of course, neither of them uses a strength attribute or makes inventory space depend on it, so. Darkest Dungeon also doesn't have any gear or equipment you pick up. The inventory management centres around bringing supplies and picking up precious objects.

Diablo has a way more limited inventory than any IE game, TES game or Fallout. I frequently had to choose what I can pick up in Diablo, but I only sometimes did it in TES games and certainly never in Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale. So blaming Diablo for that strikes me as random. Diablo also lets you return to the town any time, as long as you have a town portal (or just reset, in Diablo 2 and 3), and the loot is entirely randomized, making this comparison even more sketchy. My preferred inventory is no inventory at all, like in Witcher 1, Mass Effect 2 or Mass Effect 3. But if you're going to have me hoover up crap from fallen enemies or random crates, at least don't make it difficult. And don't make the amount of garbage I can carry dependent on my characters' stats.

Don't tell me that wouldn't work though! You wouldn't have a clogged drain afterwards, certainly.

Certainly never stopped me in Baldur's Gate, where everything actually worth selling was way below carrying capacity. It's a bit more relevant in Pillars, where you wade hip-deep in fine or better weapons dropped from rank and file enemies. But solving that with weight capacity is like taking a rocket launcher to deal with a clogged drain.

I think the best way to sum up weight limits in traditional RPGs is: low enough to be annoying, not low enough to be actually realistic. You're still carting around more crap than any real person should, but there's an arbitrary limit of how much crap is too much crap. If weight limit is to matter, it must be harsh. Take Darkest Dungeon - it has a strict limitation on how much you can carry. And your supplies occupy the same space as your loot. This creates decisions. Something weight limit in Baldur's Gate, Witcher or whatever doesn't. In DD, need to decide how much you can carry safely and what you want to carry out. But Darkest Dungeon is a game with a very specific, niche gameplay style. Pillars doesn't share it. So a weight limit is pointless. I'll also point out that Darkest Dungeon simply has a set number of item slots, which aren't affected by a Strength score... because it doesn't have attribute scores to begin with, something perhaps worth keeping in mind for those who insist there's only one way to do it. I think you can increase your load with upgrades, but either way it's much clearer and less prone to abuse than calculating a nebulous number of pounds you can carry.

Hate to break it to you, but weight limit doesn't make sense anyway, unless it's absolutely extreme. Otherwise, you can carry around eight suits of plate with you, but not nine. You've got a magic stash with you anyway, it's just a matter of degrees. Weight limit has a place if it's really severe and managing inventory is part of the experience - like in survival or crafting games. In a traditional RPG, it has no real point or "depth". It's just bean-counting. And, again, just makes some party members into pack mules. As for magic resistance... DR already applies to magic as normal. In current Deadfire beta, it apparently applies too much. Why do we need a separate magic resistance value?