Kveldulf

In a perfect world, maybe. With some really good teachers, certainly. In the world we live in, though, the purpose of school is indoctrination: to turn kids into good obedient little citizens consumers. In particular, with regards to teaching history, to turn them into good obedient patriotic unthinking cannon fodder laborers. lol

"I've never let my school interfere with my education." - Mark Twain Though I also have to quote Noah Webster - "Education is useless without the Bible". If you are being taught how to think, without truth, it's a scary propisition; a deficit of authenticity.

You're missing the point of what Silent Winter, Myself and others have been promoting. We get that Obsidian is developing a gamist system. But within that system, there has to be a correlation between what the system is attempting to model and what the what the name value is of that label. Its semiotics 101; there has to be a relationship between signifier and signed. In fact, that seems to be the logic behind why you moved damage bonus in your system re-vamp over to might, but that is not why Josh Sawyer created that example, and Silent Winter is pointing that out in his post. So if might/power/strength doesn't serve the correct purpose based on Obsidian's design attempt and Intellect is counter-intuitive, what is the solution? The solution that has been mostly discussed over the last several pages, is to remove intellect and strength from the attribute column, replace them with words that more accurately describe intent. and move them potentially to a skills slot where they can be used to bolster attributes and give a level of familiarity/ role-playing value to players. As an design fix, it works within what Obsidian is trying to develop and doesn't require any major re-tooling of the system other than extra balancing due to the expansion of the skill pool. Any other solution would require major re-design and is thus likely impractical/impossible at this stage. Hmmm, I just went back a bit in the post.... guess I got confused on what was being done with strength..... So intelligence is going to be the only damage attribute, while strength will magnify stats (+inventory space)? I apologize for my blundering.... 'sigh'

Might doesn't have to mean 'physical might'. Could even give a soul-based description. That one, and resolve are the two best attributes at the moment. The others all need work. I would wager that 'Strength' will scale similiar to intelect in this crude example (if both example characters are melee centric): More attacks of oppurtunity (intellect - melee) More damage if struck (Strength - melee) Between the two, damage over time equates to about the same (generally) Regarding spells/ranged I could see them using items/spell/skills with attribute modifiers not scaled the same way as strength. Also, I think physical muscle should be exclusive (and reserved only) somewhere in one stat (imho). To tie all or most damage together so broadly under Might sounds too simplistic - trivializing. A strong guy vs an inteligent guy should be distinguished, not inclusive because of effective DOT.

I think the good evil debacle should be based on the religion (moral law) you choose. D&D was pretty dumb about evil, good or neutral..... its approach was/is contradictory. 'Evil' religions probably won't call themselves evil, or view themselves as such - as I see it. If you violate your own moral code - from character creation - it should change the evil/good gauge. If your party contains an evil dude (relative to your law) it should cause conflict/conversion when x happens, x amount of times. On a more personal note, I'm glad in RL I don't live by the confusion/curse of 'the law', but through grace.

Defining values should always be the case, from level 1 to X. Most systems I've played seem to have an underwhelming definition between one score to another. I remember early D&D having nice percentile caveats regarding a stat that hits 18, and the difference between 18 to 19 was dramatic. I'm not advocating this incorporation of the percentile qualifiers, neccessarily, but I am advocating the idea that attributes should have the same exponential stairstep, with incremental bonuses from skills or gear filling in - between each value.

KK I understand. Though, just to be clear, I wasn't so much directing my statements at you, but also in general, to other readers/devs Cheers

^ This

That is just one of my takes on balancing the combat stats across the attributes. It is a gamist system and the names mean nothing. It is designed with all but one of the current restraints of the attribute system, I took the liberty of making the secondary defenses compete against the other combat stats. That is not what I would want as an attribute system and I agree that Endurance and Vitality are superfluous and one stat would be better. However I think you are perhaps misunderstanding some of the mechanics. That design is actually more balanced than the current system. I also like three mental and three physical combat stats but it is hard to do in the current design without being really unintuitive and that is why people are complaining about Intellect governing damage. Also for anyone else interested, check this thread out: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64891-attribute-questionnaire/ I have to disagree with the comment that "its merely a gamist system - names are just placeholders" (paraphrased). It seems that the names ought to be legalistic, if they are intended to portray anything well. Skills and abilities ought to be reserved for the band-aids needed for 'perceived balance' issues. Abstract representation can only go so far before it becomes homogenous tasteless soup, imho. Ability/reactions/action type filler would be a better approach than trying to fudge too many values under one stat umbrella. I cringe anymore at the mention of balance; an empirical trepidation brought from other systems' lack luster stat increments and so called "progressive scales". I'm not snubbing my nose entirely at these ideas, just saying that, in this case, I really don't like that version of 'Might'. It's as though the idea has kicked out reality and replaced it with a Picaso. Also, "unintuitive" is a rough word for this genre. Seems to me that if we are to really balance any system, it first should be done with a symmetric design, and described adequately. An intelect bonus being used as 'indirect' melee damage isn't that hard to swallow - if it has a properly worded tooltip and properly placed in the UI. Anymore I want to see a system that views attributes as multipliers from a base (racial) +skill ability values.

4. Meh, you're right. And yea i played ToEE. Been awhile though. I remember it being way too short It was one of the few games that I remember had flowing hair out of a helmet... nice touch.

Q1 No Q2 Yes Q3 Married Q4 Should be dependant on gear. Dexterity should offer another chance of complete mitigation. Q5 Yes Q6 Yes. It shouldn't be a main purpose of that stat though.

No thanks. It is pointless. I am not really interested in player expectations as TBH most players have garbage expectations and desires. I would rather focus on the design goals themselves. No dump stats Dumping a stat is harmful to every build Every attribute must be useful for every character (class) Attributes must be reasonably balanced It should be hard to make a bad character No Attribute shall govern multiple defenses The only other thing to consider about attributes other than combat stats is dialogue and scripted interaction attribute checks. I'm thinking of creating a new thread as I do not like the direction this one has taken. This was the last setup I was working on. I do not believe it is possible to have a very good attribute system if the three secondary defenses are given to all six attributes as is like spreading butter across too much bread. Might - Damage, Healing, Stamina Regen Perception - Accuracy, Criticals Endurance - Stamina, Inventory Size Vitality - Fortitude, Health, Effect Reduction Dexterity - Reflex, Action Speed Resolve - Willpower, Durations/AoE Size I'm not sure if Might, Perception, Endurance, Vitality, Dexterity, Resolve are official?? or your brand? My take on those are: Might - Shouldn't be left so generic and applicable to so much - too abstract. 'Might' instead should be reserved in the classic sense, brawn. For whatever reason, in this day in age, we think bigger doesn't represent strength (might) because we heard, saw, feel that it isn't so. Well I disagree because my logic tells me: a big fast guy would be better than a small fast guy. I think many are so mutually inclusive over this stat because small non-Helga (woman) fighters look better, even though realistically it’s not the case. In the end, I think there are other undertones with renaming this stat - *cough* political correctness* cough* Perception - Okay, but accuracy with all weapons right? Endurance - Sounds bland and similar to resolve (the nomenclature), they both sound like they should be the same stat. (true for other systems too, imho) Vitality - Again, this sounds repetitive with the above Dexterity - Okay Resolve - See Endurance I think fundamentally starting; the six stats ought to be bifurcated, in a diametric way, like so: PHYSICAL MENTAL Strength vs- Intelect Constitution vs- Willpower Dexterity vs- Perception So what I'm trying to say with this is: You will never have an opposing test where a physical stat is vs another physical stat (Generally) You will never have an opposing test where a mental stat is vs another mental stat (Generally) I believe this design is more congruent with a realistic depiction than the abstract, dare I say relative prerogative so hodge podgly introduced in most systems. Please, know I mean no disrespect with my thoughts. I'm not trying to rain on your parade/thoughts... just constructive (attempting) criticism. Cheers

Here I was thinking something much simpler with your statement: fighters using the grimoire as a blunt weapon... Heck, some of those grimoires are big enough, you could probably use it as a shield too!

I wonder, would it be feasible or tasteful to incorporate the following in Pillars of Eternity: 1. A check to see what kind of injury penalty and associated graphic (if applicable) to insert onto character - For those familiar, I'm thinking warhammer fantasy roleplay 'messy death' crit/injury system - simplified/modified. 2. Paired combat sequences - animating things like: dodging, parrying, glancing blows, direct hits, lethal hits, a kick in the groin. 3. Ranged target hit animations - dynamic and more interesting. Usually this is pretty generic in most games.... I'm thinking borderline Ace Ventura 2 - seeing a reaction akin to Jim Carry getting pegged in each leg with javelins. Would be much more amusing than 'shrug' 'ouch' 'uhg' 'meh...' 4. Post combat field dressing graphics. Also, This is a bit unrealated but, another thing I would like to see is coup de grace implemented differently than other systems. There is nothing more frustrating than: rolling to hit someone sleeping (or they're simply twittling their thumbs), then rolling a little under their modified AC to miss......... or hit and do a lot of 'abstract damage' - yet still, 'superhumanly' and headless, have the vitality to fight (even though I put a 20 lb great axe through their neck).

It's less about protecting people and more about allowing a wider range of viable builds. Muscle wizards, genius fighters, high willpower rogues, etc. e: I also tend to post a lot on SA because there's one thread for discussing PE so it's very easy to step into a conversation at an opportune time. Threads here cover a lot of topics and often move quickly. This sounds intriguing. :D can't wait to hear more about it. I don't normally write game design/mechanics but I was getting tired of the bottleneck of career centric stats/skills - which led me to start on a system. I posted it on gamedev (Eerily, I called it Project Escalation.... I know.... same abbreviation oooooo ). So essentially, my attempt came down to a system that could enable a variety of builds within an 'archtype' the player would sculpt along the way: the link: http://www.gamedev.net/topic/604809-mechanics-for-an-mmo-or-not/?p=4826942&fromsearch=1&do=findComment&comment=4826942 Note: It looks like the attachment on the site got wonked, the tables lost cell background colors - data is still visible if you highlight. FYI, I didn't really proof the document all that well. Don't expect you to read it - just expressing similar sentiments.

Arcanum was by far the most amusing character creation of any PC game I played. No other comes close to the wild career selection (and unfortunately nowadays they're 'politically incorrect') - Idiot Savant, Escaped lunatic, Arsonist, Technophobia, Afraid of the Dark... to name a few.

I understand the hesitation - regarding firearms in a fantasy setting. Usually, the iconic fantasy theme omits this technology; developers/writers choosing to maintain a safe, "non-contradictory paradigm". However, like what another forum poster said, Warhammer Fantasy has firearms incorporated into its mythos (The Warhammer realm of The Empire being loosely based on the Germanic late renaissance period): it adds more distinction to its human races and doesn't break the fantasy mood. If it still seems awry, then consider the history of arms and armour - a great source of justification: military armour and firearms have had quite a long history - which most Americans perceive inaccurately. A variety of harnesses (suits of armour) produced during the 16th and 17th century were made in a similar approach to contemporary body armour: negating types of threats, though, perhaps with caveats at times. For example, producing a harness that could defeat a pistol shot (Google armour of proof) may not hold up to a pike as well. Also, another little known fact: the degradation of military armour design during these centuries became less innovative, and more simplistic (not in a good way) - both in form and function. An emphasis on firearms was the call empires exercised at this time; human life (-armour/protect) wasn't as important as the number of boots on the ground - inflating army numbers substantially by reducing armor production. Aside from a historical consideration, much of the high adventure feeling in fantasy originates from historical bastaridizations (widely understood of course), including LOTR. The misguided adherence of the LOTR paradigm has carved a notch in customer/audience expectations: a template that is no longer about creative license to game developers but rather statistical legalism. There will always be the crowd that likes this homogeny, thinking it’s the way. From my prerogative though, games that had real essence was from an unrestraint, dare I say reckless approach, to making the game and letting the audience decide with their wallets.... and it helped the developers were gifted instead of mimics.

Our gaming group has religously played dark heresy since release. Quite a fun setting to tinker with. I will warn you though, the modules are not very user friendly; they have lots of interesting fluff, but typically any of the social dynamics or splits in the module can be confusing to iron out. Make sure to take plenty of notes and write it all out before commencing. GM'ing Fantasy Flight modules requires a Difficult 30% check to succeed ( ). Each degree of failure usually equates to angry popcorn flung. However, each successful test means more tears and terror. Muahahaha! Also, beware of psyker player characters. They can make things either very interesting or very scary.

I don't think armour should be a skill at all. I understand there exists some balancing consideration as to why. However, I feel it ruins apart of the mechanics/lore by inserting a typical and obvious balance element. Surely there are other elements one could levarge for the sake of balance. Anymore, I just roll my eyes at D&D'ers stating that armor should be X restrictive/encumbering (just to make balancing fit). Here is a factoid outside of game balancing to think about..... heavy armour, or usually more specifically inferred, plate (combat not tourney or parade) harnesses, are not "heavy", nor do they incur such terrible restrictions to range of motion (which is usually imagined). If you would disagree with me, then I would recommend a lovely video from a Metropolitan Museum curator. His credentials trump any nay sayers imo. Video below .... How to Mount a Horse in Armor and Other Chivalric Problems - As for item balance I am not a fan of incremental, ultra relative cookies. I personally like the idea of a level one item being as effective as a level 50 item; this makes the economy easier to consider and item power less relative (and special items... more special).

Ah Arcanum, oh the many hours I dumped in this game. I played it through at least 3 times, and God only knows how many attempts stopped at shrouded hills; I was too curious/unsure about all of the different builds. First time I played through, I got rid of virgil and played solo like a real hero.. Went heavy into agility and dodge/melee. Wrecked a lot of stuff with my trusty Bangellian scourge... muahahahah! Yea to hell with throwing the one ring in the fire... err i mean sword. Second time I played as a technologist and eventually managed to make the uber caliber pistol ( I think it was called the vendrigoth bore pistol or somthin). That was one of the most satisfying creations I could remember..... calling shots to the head and watching them pop off left and right heh... Third time I used a trainer to see the magic schools. Arcanum was the most enjoyable RPG expereinces I've ever had. I believe its "unbalance" was the reason why.