Lephys

She wouldn't want me to tell you this, but she cleaned it off specifically for the photo. Obviously you guys don't possess Intangi-Vision, and therefore are incapable of seeing the mountains and piles of creativity and imagination strewn about her office space. I don't even know how her mind breathes in there. The stuff is EVERYWHERE! o_o

I believe I was actually involved in that conversation, heh. I just forgot at the time I was reading this and responding. Points noted. I suppose the only truly valuable aspects of the above type of system are the more precise character facets (for example, someone might be extremely accurate with a bow, or with throwing daggers, but can't necessarily do cartwheels or run an obstacle course well -- neither Dexterity nor Agility really cover both facets, by themselves) and the idea of multi-facet checks. It's not really imperative that they be grouped like I have done above. You could simply have what amounts to twice as many stattributes, then just have the possibility for things to perform checks on groupings of them (probably no more than 2 at once, though there might be some potential uses for checks of 3 at a time... I'm not sure I'd want to go much beyond that, though, as it seems like that's just getting into ridiculous-complexity land as far as the technical aspects of game development go). Mr. Magniloquent's post just got me thinking... we try to group these things in other ways already, and try to cover multiple facets of a character with a single, seemingly-overly-abstracted stattribute. Intimidate: Are you a Warrior? Oh, then we'll check your Strength. Are you a Wizard? Oh, well then we'll check your Intelligence. What you're really doing is checking two different types of power. Hence the grouping. But, like I said, I realize it tends to be a bit complicated when it comes to interacting with the rest of the game's design. It's just sad, though, when, say, Perception isn't even represented, except the attentiveness aspect of it, via Wisdom (a la more recent DnD rules). Why does high Wisdom automatically give you 20/15 vision and superb hearing? Why can't I make a character who's wise, but also hard of hearing and/or seeing? Why can't I make a high-DEX character with horrible balance? Specifically related to P:E, why can't I make an average-Intelligence Wizard with very strong soul power? Then, of course, the ever-troubling Charisma stat: Why can't I make a highly Charismatic person who isn't gorgeous? Or one who naturally inspires people to listen/pay attention to them, passively, but who isn't very good at actively manipulating people? It's just the allure of the nuance of character creation. I want it, but then by simply trying to represent all of it in a stattribute field, you immediately threaten the whole system with overcomplexity. I'm very interested in the possibility of a happy medium there.

A few issues. First, the intention behind aspects is that they're both positive and negative for your character to have. I'm having a hard time coming up with non-contrived reasons for why having high Strength would be a bad thing except in the opportunity cost of not having your other, perhaps more important attributes higher. Conversely, low strength is never a good thing unless you're using it as a dump stat to get your other attributes higher. Second, the problem with attributes is that in this context they have an unnecessary level of granularity (or, rather, granularity in the wrong dimensions). Unless you're rolling checks (which is something I'd also like to move away from), the difference between 5 strength and 6 strength is kinda arbitrary (and even if you are rolling checks, the difference between a DC15 task and a DC20 task is just as arbitrary). Thus the choice between them is also kinda arbitrary. I can't make an informed judgement about what the game interprets as a 5 STR task and a 6 STR task unless I'm looking at a walkthrough. Aspects are much easier to judge this way. Third, attributes just aren't flexible enough. You can have a "Reputation" attribute that ranges from 1 to 10, sure, but with Aspects you can have "Disgraced Nobleman" and "Accused Criminal" and "Famous Orc-slayer." Furthermore their properties means the player can gain additional aspects that reflect the events of the game and have them affect things in a 100% natural, organic, and transparent way. The only problem with Aspects in a CRPG is, unlike in a tabletop game, you can't give the player freedom to come up with literally any aspect they can think of, you have to limit them to a pre-written list. True enough. I still think attribute values already cover some possibilities for aspects, but they definitely don't cover all of them. But, as you said, they aren't mutually exclusive. I like stattributes, and like to see interesting things done with them. But then, I also like what you're calling aspects, in their various forms. I like the dynamics the combination of the two (stattributes and aspects) generates. I think my favorite type of that system so far (just from my experience... I realize there are probably like 70 other better examples or something that I don't know of) is the Shadowrun PnP system of Edges and Flaws. They separate out the negative aspects and positive ones, but both cost points (Flaws basically add points, and Edges subtract points). Basically, instead of the pre-written "You're really strong and wise, but you are very cowardly!" type aspects (like the backgrounds in Arcanum, or the traits in Fallout, both of which I loved -- don't get me wrong....), you get to pick what's flawed about your character, and what's exceptional about them, individually. But you have to balance it out. If you take a 5-point Edge, you've go to take -5 points of Flaws. If you take 20 points worth of Edges, you've got to take -20 points of Flaws. It's pretty great, really. They get VERY specific. I definitely think that separation is awesome. But, yeah, I'd love to see a system like that on top of stattributes.

... "supposed to be"... When someone makes a house from wood that they claim is a well-built house, and it falls over under its own weight, that doesn't get me doubting that someone else trying to construct a wooden house is somehow going to fail.

^ I agree with you, but, in a way, attributes are sort of the same thing as aspects. If you have 5 Strength, it could be said that Physical Weakness/Frailty is an aspect of your character. You could have anything in the entire game check against your Strength score, and it would be fundamentally no different than if it checked against the binary existence of a Weakness aspect. But, that's why I was thinking it would, indeed, be neat if the typical stattributes (totally calling them that from now on... 8D) were broken down a bit more into all the usual facets of a given person, as Mr. Magniloquent was suggesting. Of course, I fully understand that my above proposal is rather complex (in terms of coding and design and all that jazz) and would be tricky to tweak and hammer out all the system interactivity for.

*gasp*... You mean you haven't been considering the number of skin pores on creature designs this whole time?! Oh my! This is horrible news! How will we get quality creatures?! Nahhh. Awesome update, haha. And keep up the splendid work, ^_^ No, really. Keep it up... in the air... like a hacky sack. I SWEAR TO GODLIKE, if that good work touches the ground... EDIT: Oh dear... pun overlooking is just plain unacceptable: I can now say with certainty that it's good to know you're not doing a... pore job...

Ummm... in what world is the potential quantity of sellable items and their respective base values NOT going to be factored into a design decision to allow price fluctuations between regions/locations? I was under the assumption that we weren't discussing this under the assumption that the devs are mindless idiots who just draw numbers out of a hat in order to produce the math behind their implementations. Guess that's what I get for assuming things. Also, the price difference for repairing your stuff COMPELS players to go back to some other place to repair things? Hah. Yeah, just like the existence of 30 different types of potions COMPELS all players to always stock up on every type of potion available, and always use them on everyone in the party whenever possible in order to maximize combat efficiency. 'Cause, I certainly don't know of anyone who doesn't do that in games with lots of beneficial potions. I mean, if there's an option in a game, and it's beneficial, then obviously it's preposterous that you do it. What? Selling my potions is 10% less profitable in this town than it is in another town? And that other town is 17 days away from here? Welp... better just hike back there right now. I have no other option. It's not like the distance factors into whether or not it's worth doing that or just selling them here, right now. Not to mention the possibility that, by the time I get there, prices could potentially change. Not to mention that the idea that you're saving up all your potions and only selling them at the most profitable town means that you've ALREADY "arbitrarily" traveled to all other available towns in the area and sold potions at them, so that you now know all the price differences. How else would you know? Ignore enough factors at play and there's always a seemingly valid, obvious argument against something. Prices can statically differ, and even fluctuate, to some extent without breaking the game or requiring you to go completely out of your way to do anything to compensate for them. It really is that simple.

Your mention of mergers got me thinking... What if all stats encompassed 2 aspects? I'm not sure exactly how to divide them up (since some could feasibly be grouped a couple of different ways), but here's a SUPER rough example: Power: - Strength (physical) - Focus (non-physical/soul-related, etc.) Prowess: - Dexterity (precision/coordination aspect) - Agility (physical flexibility/speed/capability of movement) Constitution: - Endurance (physical) - Willpower (mental/intangible) Awareness: (A little iffy on this one, overall, though I think it should be represented in SOME form) - Perception (visual) - Hearing (audible) - (Maybe even smell could go in here, for some races/characters? Or maybe vision, hearing, and smell could all be combined into a Senses facet? *shrug*. Input MORE THAN welcome here.) Reasoning: (Pretty much directly what you suggested, Mr. Magniloquent) - Intellect (ability to learn/acquire/process) - Wisdom (ability to discern importance of information and make decisions with known knowledge/regarding unknowns) Charisma: (also not sure about it, but definitely want to see it in SOME form) - Distinctiveness (passive; could be tied to traits to decide type, such as beauty, ruggedness, innocence, etc. -- exactly HOW people find you compelling to react to over someone else) - Manipulation (active; again, could be any number of types; a measure of your ability to actively affect people's reactions) It's a very, very general idea. But, many things could simply check against your main stat, while others would check a certain aspect. So, you could have a Constitution of 10 (Endurance of 4, Willpower of 6), or you could have 7 Endurance and 3 Willpower. If something specifically attacked your mind, it would check your Willpower. If it specifically attacked your body, it would be endurance. But, many things might check your overall Constitution. Like I said, I haven't even really BEGUN to work it out in detail and test it against anything. It's just a general idea. Hell, every single one of the categories could be changed, and or the facts within them. Or the way the points work, etc. I'd love input.

^ All you need is 2 tiers of magical items (minimum), one being more common (so anyone with decent expertise can devise what magical components were involved and how they were combined -- essentially reverse-engineer the item) while the other is unique/beyond common, so that your character pretty much cannot figure out how to reverse-engineer the item, and realizes this when he "delves" it, only to find absolutely nothing familiar about it, whatsoever. Almost like when some switch or something breaks on a device in real life, and you examine it, only to say "Ehh... I can't figure out how this comes apart. Maybe it's just all glued/soldered together, and it can't really be disassembled without destroying it?", only with magical stuff. 8P Just because something you broke down was magical doesn't mean all magical things can be broken down.

You could just have SOME of the coolest loot come from slain enemies, and SOME of the coolest loot come from crafting. Unless the list of cool loot in the game consists of just a single item, nothing requires that the cool loot you get from crafting be the same cool loot that you get from slaying things. It's just like with anything else that gets you loot. Work through some really kickass dialogue? Maybe someone rewards you with some old family heirloom unique sword that you could NEVER find via killing all the foes in the land. That doesn't mean that killing all the foes in the land won't yield some other awesome piece of unique loot that isn't the exact same thing as that heirloom sword but that's equally as cool.

That's exactly what I'm thinking. There are OODLES of options: - Increased cast/ability times (similar to the heavy armor penalty that's already in the game) - You can only control one or the other (summoned thing or character) at a single time, with the ability to toggle between them - You have to "cast through" your summoned creature in order to use its abilities. The list goes on and on. But, if you don't mitigate the added effectiveness of what amounts to an additional party member on the board, then you're going to run into a game in which having summoned things on the field is ALWAYS better than any other option that doesn't involve having summoned things on the board. And, for what it's worth, I'm REALLY not a fan of the "let's just make the summoning abilities really expensive in terms of character progression currency!" option, where you give up the vast majority of your caster's active-ability utility JUST to gain the ability to conjure additional buddies to passively contribute to your party numbers/damage/defense. Much like a Druid shouldn't have to give up all his Druidness just to turn into a ferocious, potent bear.

*shrug*... it worked kinda like that in Fallout. You could probably max a couple of skills. Maybe 3 or 4, out of, what... 15 or 16? I can't remember how many there were in the original Fallout games. Anywho, rest assured that it's just an estimate, and it'll be adjusted as needed, based on the results of testing. Hence the "probably won't have multiple skills maxed," etc. Josh Sawyer isn't one to just straight-up decide what works and what doesn't without testing his hypothesis.

That's actually a very interesting idea, Osvir. There'd have to be some ceiling, though, obviously, heh. The amount of stacking bonus would have to decrease at each stage or something. Otherwise, given enough shots, you'd magically attain perfect accuracy.

I'm with you on that. The details make the world go 'round. Occasionally, they end up not mattering so much in a particular situation, but that's pretty rare, and not even considering them in the first place means you don't actually know whether or not they would've served the design better. But, yeah... for what it's worth, I'm just very much in favor of constructively re-considering durability, if not the exact system they were going to go with. This is an in-development game, and a lot of us backed it because we want to contribute and nurture its development. While that doesn't mean "get whatever specifics we want just because we want them," I feel that I DO have some obligation to actually attempt to contribute to the development and design of the game, even if it's only helping cross some things off a list, or providing a written, readable log of a line of thinking the developers could obviously go through, themselves (I'm no exceptional genius who can think of things no one else can) but that's beneficial and time-saving to simply be able to read on here, etc. It's not about whether or not they put durability back in. It's about the constructive evaluation of the design's potential, regardless. And no one's bad for not wanting to evaluate things further. I don't think that puts anyone in a negative light, or makes them actively unconstructive. But, arguing with people about the sheer evaluation of potential is quite unconstructive.

No worries. Like I said, I understood the usage of the word. They're pretty prevalently referred to as "skills," especially in a lot of turn-based JRPGs. It just looked like that particular usage here, and the technical/specific usage of it in the discussion at hand/official quotes and such was generating confusion. Also, in the event that it WAS true, I was mildly worried, haha. Non-magic peoples with pretty much ONLY passive benefits? That would be rather unfortunate.

That post is for Ffordesoon. Read my post again... My mistake on the "did I skip it" part, then. The rest of my post still stands, as it is not dependent upon whom you were addressing.

plz tell me how you will make it small but significant at the same time. That's exactly the crux. Regional differences in pricing will either be so small as to be insignificant or so significant that they're a real hassle/ enforce backtracking. God I love this type of question. I dunno... how do you adjust a thermostat on an air-conditioner to make the room temperature comfortable? Are you always either freezing, or burning up? Or is there a point at which you're neither freezing nor burning up? If things are 5% more expensive somewhere, that adds up. If you performed actions such that things weren't 5% more expensive, throughout the entire game, that would also add up. At some point, you've either spent an extra 500 gold you wouldn't have, or saved 500 gold you wouldn't have, depending on the angle from which you're looking at it. Yet, if that 500 gold savings isn't necessary (i.e. you can not-save that 500 gold and still get by perfectly fine in the game), then it's not ridiculous. And if that 500 gold actually contributes to your buying something else more easily/quickly, then it was significant. It's quite simple, really.

^ No one's arguing that the process for fixing a sword isn't extensive. Doesn't change the fact that it's still fixing a sword, and it's still distinct from making an entirely new sword. As for the magical stuff, I don't really see a problem. If you actually reforge the sword blade or whatever, then you're not actually "replacing" the sword blade. Melting metal doesn't "destroy" that metal. It simply alters its current physical state. The metal is still metal. Now, looking at pure realism for a point of reference, yeah, you'd have to work some new metal into the mix to reforge the same size/shape blade, since the chipped/broken blade you started with is obviously missing some amount of mass (and the fact that the forging process probably doesn't retain exactly 100% of all molten metal mass you started with, etc.). So, it wouldn't be crazy to have the enchantment weaken, since you literally have less of the initially enchanted substance. However, it's also not out of the question for some abstraction to simply say "Meh, it's close enough to the same amount, so there's really no need to bother the mechanics to change by some small-but-super-accurately-deduced percentage just for realism's sake in the midst of a field of minor abstraction." Also, there could be some lore reason. Like... maybe, as long as you've got the majority of the original enchanted material, the enchantment "heals," kind of like living tissue regeneration. Only, the ENCHANTMENT would kind of fill back out throughout the object, rather than somehow physically mending the object, itself. *shrug* So, anywho, I agree with you that fixing a damaged sword, for example, is a bit similar to forging a new one, but the two are still distinct processes. Also, it wouldn't be necessary super often, in the proposed mechanic upgrades. It's not as if it's going to be a super prevalent thing through a playthrough (unless, maybe, you go around thwacking stone walls with your blades? *Shrug*)

Yes, as far as the abstraction of the game mechanics is concerned. Your character doesn't start as a fetus. He/she starts as an adult person. Obviously he hasn't been "adventuring" since the fetal stage, but he/she's been doing SOMEthing up until the present. That's a lot of time to learn things. A year-or-two of blacksmith apprenticeship will have you able to produce weapons and armor. Also, who says the game is obviously going to allow your character to become a master smith? I haven't even studied engineering intensely, but I bet I can build a shed out of wood that won't fall over. Does that mean a professional carpenter/builder can't make something 17 times better/sturdier/more efficient than I can? No. Does his ability to make such a thing mean that someone else can't even assemble pieces of wood together into some sort of free-standing construct that functions on some basic level? Nope. Oh, wait, I forgot. If we put something in P:E, it's GOT to directly model an existing implementation from another game. Drat... Darn that unwritten rule!!! *fist shake* And, as Micamo said, the whole time thing is already abstracted. Why doesn't healing take you 3 weeks of sleeping, in-game? Abstraction. So, yes, you could improve your smithing skill at an abstractly faster-than-real-life rate, and STILL be a novice/amateur relative to master smiths.

You forgot to explain why. Because! Duh! u_u

Erm... I think skills and abilities are still two different things, correct? I mean, a Wizard might have skills that help him in combat, but he'd also get the Fireball spell, which is an active ability. I would think Whirlwind would be an ability, and not a skill. Thus, it doesn't seem like anything's been said that means melee fighter people won't get active "skills" (I realize they're sometimes referred to as that) such as Whirlwind.

I'm not 100% as to the specifics, but I'm QUITE certain reforging was a thing. The difference between that (at it's greatest extent) and getting an all-new weapon/item is that you've already got the whole shape/length/balance/design template right there in front of you, and you've already got like 90% of the materials there. Sure, the smith would probably have to "melt it back down" to remake it, but the blade's already made from refined, "smithed" metal. And it's already in the shape of a blade, which is a state somewhere in the middle of the smithing process (pour the metal into a basic blade mold, hammer it out properly into the exact blade shape, etc.). Plus, you get your hilt back (if it's not broken), maybe newly attached, etc. The difference would still be a significant cost difference, plus a time difference, as he doesn't have to make an all new weapon from ingots and components, etc. Is it extensive? Sure. I'm not suggesting he just hits it with a hammer a few times and it's good to go, or puts some glue on it and glues some pieces of blade back in place. That doesn't mean that reforging a "broken" sword equals making an entirely new sword. Why would it be any different for weapons than for armor, by the way? They're BOTH just shaped pieces of metal, when it comes down to it. If you can mend a broken/cracked breastplate without starting from scratch, then you can do the same thing to a sword. The only difference is that you don't have to reproduce a sharp edge on a breastplate. *shrug*

It's amazing to me how adamant some people are about justifying their "I just don't even want to bother with something I happen to not like, because I happen to not like it" attitude. Really. "Yay, no one's going to attempt to do ANYTHING good with a durability mechanic, because the very idea of that effort upsets me, even if I'm not the one having to make it!" Then, some of us are all "Well, it's not like there aren't ways to make it better. What if we tried to make it better?" And, somehow, that's antagonizing. "OMG! Are you suggesting that my denial of possibility is somehow INCORRECT?! Like... like possibility EXISTS?! HOW DARE YOU EXPLORE POSSIBILITY!" Yup. Totally unreasonable, the exploration of possibility. We should all just stick to the ultra-reasonable assumption that the best possible course of action for any in-development design decision that some people don't like is to just scrap it, and IMMEDIATELY wash our hands of it. And heaven forbid anyone suggest that we still continue considering it. I mean, it's not like we can just let that go on in a discussion forum. Nope. We've got to jump in and try to SHUT THAT CRAP DOWN, STAT! So, seriously people. Stop trying to discuss durability in a discussion forum! It's wrong, and it physically harms other people who would rather not HAVE to read about possibilities and are somehow forced to post in regards to them, only to tell you how ridiculous it is that you're discussing possibilities, the exploration of which is considered to be quite a chore for others. WHAT ARE WE THINKING?! O_O

This bums me out most of all. Why? It's how it worked in IE games. For what it's worth, they did mention (if only while citing the mega-dungeon as an example) that they're not going to make extensive, "five floor" (for example) dungeons without any kind of shortcuts back to the surface/"exit." So... I'd bet on areas not being like... "OMG I've gotta walk around for 20 minutes just to get to the world map!" large or anything.

I really think Trashman's proposal for durability is hitting on something really good. Did weapons actually get damaged "beyond repair"? Yes, but it's a rare enough thing that, especially in an abstracted system, it doesn't really need to be incredibly prevalent. But it could still be there. Almost like Health and Stamina, carried over into equipment. After a battle, you might need to sharpen and/or re-oil your blade (or maybe after a few battles, etc.), or hammer out some dents and/or repair some fastenings on your armor. Maybe after a good while, you'd have to actually hand something off to a blacksmith to fix a crack or a large chip in a sword, (or a bent blade, etc.). Anywho, I think it's actually a VERY good change that the "damage" to your equipment's durability be a chance and not a definite. Then, certain things could increase or decrease the chance. And on that note, this would tie in pretty well to the as-yet-still-kind-of-vague weapon-vs-armor system. If you use a dagger against PLATE, for example, it would have a higher chance of suffering durability damage. And if you used it against an unarmored/lightly-armored foe, it would have a much higher chance of suffering no durability damage. Etc. Combine that with, at the very least, a positive-effect range for durability (so that attention to maintenance actually makes things go beyond normal effectiveness, rather than simply returning them to normal effectiveness), and you're onto something. I understand why they removed the system as it was proposed, but I truly hope they at least still consider possibilities of durability, rather than just giving up on it. As always, if it comes down to development resource limitations, then I obviously won't fault them for not spending more time and resources trying to get durability into a good implementable form.